Jump to content

User talk:JanAlston

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Timothy Titus. I noticed that you recently removed some content from British Cavy Council without 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: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message on my talk page, although I am sorry to note its aggressive tone. You state that you are very new to Wikipedia, having created your account only within the past 24 hours, so you will not yet be aware of all Wikipedia policies, but these include the policy of assuming good faith, and also of remaining civil in our dealings with other editors. You end your message to me with the statement: "Please leave our page alone". May I respectfully point out that it is not the BCC's page - it is Wikipedia's page, and Wikipedia is a community. Indeed, as you have stated that you are the Secretary of the BCC you do in fact have a conflict of interest in this respect, which should lead you to exercise caution. The most important thing for you to grasp is that Wikipedia pages are not part of the advertising or promotional on-line presence of their subjects. It is entirely appropriate for you to promote yourself as you see fit on your own website, but Wikipedia works with information backed up by independent sources, such as the newspaper report cited on the BCC page. If (as you suggest) you believe that the newspaper has misrepresented facts then your "issue" is with the newspaper, not Wikipedia. You are free, like any other editor, to change the article, if you can cite alternative independent sources of your own. Simply blanking pages or sections will always raise alarms, and will generally be reverted - particularly in the absence of a reasoned argument backed by independent sources. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 22:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]