Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
The edit you mistakenly reverted was consistent with ]; moreover, it is accompanied by a specific explanation on the talk page. --] (]) 03:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The edit you mistakenly reverted was consistent with ]; moreover, it is accompanied by a specific explanation on the talk page. --] (]) 03:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
:This is an especially insidious edit because it superficially appears to conform to expected requiredments -- that is, you would have noted both in-line citations and a link to an ISBN number; however, the strange gambit doesn't withstand further scrutiny.
:This article has been under attack for some time by anonymous IP "contributors" with similar dubious sources which have been addressed ''ad nauseam.'' It appears to me that this may be a PRC-sponsored attack, but it's difficult to see how that odd suspicion can be clarified. For now, the purpose of this codicil is to help you understand a bit more about the situation into which you've unwittingly strayed. --] (]) 03:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 03:47, 14 March 2009
Welcome
Hello, The Black Void! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Misplaced Pages you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Nja06:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Arson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. That stuff does not belong here. Even if he had his own article, we wouldn't link to it, because we wouldn't link to any alleged arsonist. THat's not what this article is for. --Rodhullandemu 21:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
That's OK, I thought you were the vandal, but it was the guy you were reverting. Sorry. --Rodhullandemu21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Edits like this are not helpful. We need to be civil, even to vandals - please stick to the templates if it is not clear what is civil and what is not. Kuru21:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The edit you mistakenly reverted was consistent with WP:V; moreover, it is accompanied by a specific explanation on the talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an especially insidious edit because it superficially appears to conform to expected requiredments -- that is, you would have noted both in-line citations and a link to an ISBN number; however, the strange gambit doesn't withstand further scrutiny.
This article has been under attack for some time by anonymous IP "contributors" with similar dubious sources which have been addressed ad nauseam. It appears to me that this may be a PRC-sponsored attack, but it's difficult to see how that odd suspicion can be clarified. For now, the purpose of this codicil is to help you understand a bit more about the situation into which you've unwittingly strayed. --Tenmei (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)