 | This is an essay.
This is not a Wikipedia policy, however, it is a page containing the views of its author(s). You may or may not heed it (your choice). |
If I reverted your edit, it was likely because of something you did below. If you still believe after reading this that I wrongly accused you, see my talk page and ask me why there.
Before even blaming me... edit
- Make sure you have the right guy. My username should appear in your talk page's edit history. Check what the message I left you says, and it should give you the reason your edit was reverted.
- Once you find the reason, see an explanation below that best matches your case.
#1 Reason I revert: You posted blatant vandalism/Removed content edit
The message I left probably looked like this:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
or
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
My explanation for it:
You either typed something that was inappropriate, removed content from the page that was sourced and important to the article, or replaced the page with random letters, numbers, etc.
You get caught almost every time, don't do it
#2 Reason I revert: You put content into an article that is unsourced edit
The message I left probably looked like this:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
or
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
My explanation for it:
You do not have to cite every sentence of an article. However, it is important to verify controversial statements, as well as things that are not obvious.
You should still cite information every once in awhile, as articles without sources sometimes get deleted.
This usually isn't discovered so easily, depending on how controversial it is, but there are editors out there who check every sentence for truth
#3 Reason I revert: You violated NPOV edit
The message I left probably looked like this:
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.
My explanation for it:
Always make sure that whatever you type is neutral to both sides of the party/argument. Say you were a hardcore Democrat editing the Barack Obama article, you would have to make sure that anything you typed was not pro-Obama or anti-John McCain, no matter how urging it is. Make sure it just repeats information, withour opinion included.
One major cause of NPOV violations is that the editor has a COI. This occurs when a major contributor to an article works for the company, is related to the person, etc. and may be adding opinionated content. This has a higher chance of revision.
This is pretty obvious to someone reading through it, so don't expect to get away with it for long, especially on large articles
edit
The message I left probably looked like this:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
My explanation for it:
Some users (not neccisarily you) purposefully add unrelated external links to articles in order to advertise, support something, etc.
You might have unintentionally inserted a link to an off-site page that has very little to do with the article, or is viewed as an advertisement.
Only people who follow external links discover these, but it doesn't mean to do it on purpose anyway
#5 Reason I revert: You tested something in a namespace article edit
The message I left probably looked like this:
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
My explanation for it:
You probably just tried to see if something worked (even related to the article you did it to), but instead you clicked "Save page".
Don't worry, almost everyone does this at one time or another, just remember to use the sandbox instead. Yo can also create a sandbox of your own so no other users use it by creating a page called: User:YOUR USERNAME/Sandbox.
It is never intentional, but it still gets reverted as soon as pure vandalism, because it is so obvious