User talk:Toupee43

re Daniel Hesidence
I have reverted your edits to the above article, as they made it unencyclopedic and non compliant with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. You are free to add cited content to the article, and provide further references, but please do so within the established layout. Please note that this is an encyclopedia, and many different disciplines are presented in the same or similar format for ease of reference and navigation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

from User talk:LessHeard vanU
I have to admit that I was pretty annoyed to find that you had changed the posting back to the incomplete posting that was there in the first place. But, I can understand why the rules would be that way. I am unclear on a few other tings, though - can I remove something that I find to be inaccurate? And why were the links that I posted removed? Toupee43 (talk) 04:44pm, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. You can remove anything that is uncited/referenced (providing it isn't common knowledge). If something is wrong, but referenced to a good source then it needs discussing on the article talkpage whether it should be removed. It is preferable to request a reference for any dubious claim - using the template next to the piece of text - but any bad content can be chucked out straight away. The links were removed because I simply reverted the content to the previous editors; it is the fast way to do it, but it means some good bits can get lost also. There is nothing to prevent you from including any of the content you previously added, but within the layout that already exists. It is best to remember that the project is in a permanent state of Work in Progress, and that sometimes an edit which didn't work the first time can be applied differently and be accepted (and then re-edited again in the future.) I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)