User talk:SannnnnnnnD

May 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Royal Oak High School. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

L293D you said that my edit to the royal oak high school page was illegitimate, yet I cited my edits and they were legitimate information on the topic. What did I do wrong?
 * Well, your two first edits were clear vandalism, but you third one was not. I reverted you because you had just vandalized twice but since your third edit was good, Ill restore it. Thanks and I hope you enjoy editing constructively here! L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's only because of the third edit that I haven't blocked this account. Consider yourself on your final warning regarding vandalism.
 * But also, welcome to the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, SannnnnnnnD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Assume other editors are here to help as much as is possible.

Ian.thomson (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)