User talk:Amg383

December 2020

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that in this edit to Autolysis (biology), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Autolysis (biology). Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

• If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Autolysis (biology) was changed by Amg383 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.855962 on 2020-12-07T20:56:22+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Before addressing your question, I suggest you read through this helpful information about editing Wikipedia which can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages, especially the first five entries: Help:Getting started; Wikipedia:Introduction; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Wikipedia:Citing sources; Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Notability; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents.

Some specific guideline points: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable."

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

Wikipedia:Verifiability. "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."

Help:Footnotes can provide format guidance in addition to the introductory page linked above.

Your addition to the introductory paragraph is quite dense. If the paragraph is accurate but just needs more detail, I suggest you leave it as it is and explain it further in the text. If there are errors as shown in reliable, verifiable sources, correct those as simply as possible.

You subsequently added a large amount of material without citing reliable, verifiable, third party sources. In a technical subject like this one, you need to back up the analysis with more citations. Be sure that you write this in as simple language as possible and are not just copying and pasting it. If it comes from a copyrighted source and appears to be a copyright violation, it will almost certainly be detected and reverted.

Explain what you are doing and why changes and additions are needed in the edit summary. It may not allow enough room for your explanation. If that is the case, add that further explanation is on the talk page. You can add an item there where you explain the changes and show why, from the sources, changes and additions are made or there are additions needed.

These steps should help avoid your changes being considered in violation of any policies or guidelines (which does not necessarily mean they are wrong or are vandalism, even though some of the automated messages can characterize them as such depending on the "button" that the reviewer pushes or the filter that the bot trips). Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You can also get guidance from experience users at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)