| Revision as of 05:20, 19 April 2012 edit98.94.204.96 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:32, 19 April 2012 edit undoGarnetAndBlack (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,019 edits →April 2012Next edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| ] Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of ], such as the one you made to ], did not appear to be constructive and has been ] or removed. Please use ] for any test edits you would like to make, and read the ] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --><!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 --> | ] Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of ], such as the one you made to ], did not appear to be constructive and has been ] or removed. Please use ] for any test edits you would like to make, and read the ] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --><!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 --> | ||
| *Umm, Thanks. Apparently upon reading over the history and talk, you have not been following guidelines, protocol, nor the page consensus regarding this article section, and have been using redundant citations and sockpuppetry on this page ],]. The citations are still used in the re-edit, which according to the consensus, is only supposed to mention the "recruiting violations." It's on the talk page. The details are listed in the actual article citations, which is one reason they are there. ] (]) 05:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | *Umm, Thanks. Apparently upon reading over the history and talk, you have not been following guidelines, protocol, nor the page consensus regarding this article section, and have been using redundant citations and sockpuppetry on this page ],]. The citations are still used in the re-edit, which according to the consensus, is only supposed to mention the "recruiting violations." It's on the talk page. The details are listed in the actual article citations, which is one reason they are there. ] (]) 05:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| **According to consensus reached nearly four years ago, the Danny Ford section reads the way it does because a separate article dealing with the recruiting scandal was merged into the Clemson football article. Your apparent belief that sourced and verifiable content can be removed solely on your whim is not in adherence with this consensus. Feel free to clean up citations as you see fit, but do not remove material from this section again without seeking consensus. Also, deletion of 3RR warning templates from your Talk page will not help your case should a report be filed against you for violation of this policy. ] (]) 05:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:32, 19 April 2012
April 2012
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Clemson Tigers football, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or 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.
- Umm, Thanks. Apparently upon reading over the history and talk, you have not been following guidelines, protocol, nor the page consensus regarding this article section, and have been using redundant citations and sockpuppetry on this page WP:SOC,WP:3RRNO. The citations are still used in the re-edit, which according to the consensus, is only supposed to mention the "recruiting violations." It's on the talk page. The details are listed in the actual article citations, which is one reason they are there. 98.94.204.96 (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- According to consensus reached nearly four years ago, the Danny Ford section reads the way it does because a separate article dealing with the recruiting scandal was merged into the Clemson football article. Your apparent belief that sourced and verifiable content can be removed solely on your whim is not in adherence with this consensus. Feel free to clean up citations as you see fit, but do not remove material from this section again without seeking consensus. Also, deletion of 3RR warning templates from your Talk page will not help your case should a report be filed against you for violation of this policy. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)