User talk:Generalanonymous

Talk Page

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits 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 take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous
We know. Scientology is a cult, Hubbard was a loony, David Miscavige is an asthmatic dwarf, blah blah blah... We get it. But how helpful is it to your cause to vandalize encyclopedic articles about Scientology? How effectively will screwing with Wikipedia affect Scientology? You're doing it wrong. Wikipedia isn't your target.

You want to effectively edit these articles to get the truth out? Here's the secret formula:
 * 1) Locate new articles and scholarly research about Scientology from sources that meet Wikipedia standards on reliability and verifiability.
 * 2) In a neutral tone, add encyclopedic content to the Scientology articles. If you make fun of Hubbard and Scientology, you're doing it wrong. Let the facts speak for themselves. With facts like Fair Game and Disconnection, why embellish them with opinion?
 * 3) Profit!
 * 1) Profit!

Sincerely, Everyone at Wikipedia who would like you to stay on target -- Good Damon 04:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. You should also be aware the the Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation here. This means that an administrator may impose restrictions on your editing of those articles in the interests of minimising disruption. I don't propose to do that yet, but I will be strongly influenced by your previous editing pattern. More information here. Meanwhile I suggest you follow up on my advice to read our most important policies. -- Rodhull andemu  13:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK guess u r right Generalanonymous (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)