User talk:Westburnwolds

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Humberside, you may be blocked from editing. Lozleader (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

email
Thanks for youe email. As I stated there it is best to have discussions on content on Wikipedia talk pages for transparency and so that everyone can have an input. So the place for this is Talk:Humberside.

I think the problem you are running into is verifibility... wikipedia policy is here. The most salient points being "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

In other words, we need to find some sources or we can't add the information even if it we know or believe it to be true. I apologise for using the vandal template (it is a bit unsubtle) but you kept restoring material without using the edit summary, which was getting perilously close to an edit war. Have a look at another policy WP:ES: "It is considered good practice to always provide an edit summary, but it is especially important when reverting the actions of other editors, or if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit." Editors who don't use edit summaries tend to be viewed with suspicion, especially if they they limit their edits to only one or two articles or subject matters. If I hadn't spotted it someone else would have, I expect.

Sorry for bombarding you with policy! Anyway, I look forward to continuing the conversation over on Talk:Humberside where other editors can have an input.

Lozleader (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)