User talk:IsabellaW - Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) at 19:22, 25 March 2008 (→arbcom evidence: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 19:22, 25 March 2008 by John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) (→arbcom evidence: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages

Welcome, IsabellaW!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Misplaced Pages experience:

First, take a look at the Misplaced Pages Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
Misplaced Pages has a vibrant community of editors. The village pump is a great place to see the goings on.
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some pointers to learn more about this project:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

arbcom evidence

G'day,

Please consider revising your evidence on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Evidence, so that it is primarily making assertions that are backed by diffs.

Currently your evidence is two sections of background material that doesnt have any obviously stated objective. The simple solution to this will be to review it to determine what are your key points, and make separate sections for each. (you might need to rearrange the text a little in order to group them into sections.)

Also, evidence that doesnt contain diffs is vague and often immaterial to the case at hand, so it is strongly advised that you tie your assertions to onwiki evidence. i.e. rather than "group x acts in manner y", provide diffs of times when manner y can be seen in the editing pattern of a group of wikipedians. If you cant think of how an assertion could be tied to Wiki editing, then the assertion is probably unrelated to the case.

John Vandenberg (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)