User talk:Link2086

Edit Summary Request
I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 16:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem...happy editing and welcome to the community. Kukini 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about fancruft
I was browsing Wikipedia when I came across an article regarding the Legend of Zelda series that was a pure fabrication. The article is discussing the timeline of the Zelda series, and it's total fancruft.

I tried editing the page with a message that there is no officially released timeline, but it got edited back by the user who keeps posting the fancruft. I then added tags for verification and marked the article as not factually accurate (which is completely true), but the same user removed these.

My account is too new to move the page, and, as far as I can tell, there's no copyrighted material on the page...what can I do to prevent this false information from being spread?

Thanks!
 * You can start by adding the tags back if you think they are appropriate and necessary. If anybody removes them again without a reason, you can leave one drmmt on their talk page, and ask them to discuss any problems on the article's talk page.  Also, if you think that you yourself can improve the article, you should do this.  --JD  don't talk email me 17:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Okay, I'll do that. Thank you for your help!Link2086 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mmm, well there is a lot of accepted "fancruft" in Wikipedia, but if this article is unverifiable, and original research, take it to Articles for deletion.--Commander Keane 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly what is happening--the article is a user's original research and can't be verified. I'll do that; thank you for the advice.
 * Link2086 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)