User talk:Pprager

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Oviatt Library, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. 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. Nyciscool (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make test edits to articles, as you did with this edit to Oviatt Library, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits constitute vandalism, and will be reverted. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Oviatt Library. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Oviatt Library.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

Upon further review, what originally looked like page-blanking vandalism was, at least in some cases, good faith edits which looked wrong. Sorry. Please discuss any major changes to an article, like removing entire sections, on the talk page. -- Deville (Talk) 00:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Further comment: if you want advice on the best way to make the changes to Oviatt Library, please reply here or on my talk page and I'll try to help. -- Deville (Talk) 00:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Pprager. You have new messages at Deville's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

To remove the "advert" notice, you can simply remove the text labeled {{Advert}}. But what I suggest you do first is think about writing the "history and facts" section... It looks to me that this is a very close copy of this link and as such is probably a copyright violation, but in any case gives the article the "advert" feel. The information is ok, just the exact words being copied is not. It's probably best to rewrite that section in an encyclopedic tone. Let me know if you need anything else, hope this helps. -- Deville (Talk) 04:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)