User talk:Williamlourduraj

Regarding your edit to Palaeography:
Your recent edit to Palaeography (diff) was reverted by automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either vandalism, link spam, or test edits to the page. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 15:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

more
Definition of latin paleography has been deleted - by definition, all articles are definitions so there is no need to put "definition of" in the title. In any case, I felt the article was a fork. There is no need to spilt the palaeography article. Your text is available here. Please feel free to copy from it to improve the existing palaeography article. Please pay attention to formatting standards - your article was apalling. -- RHaworth 17:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

palaeography
I had no choice but deleted your recent entry at palaeography. The grammar was poor, the same sentences would repeat over and over, there were no paragraph breaks - although it was cited it appeared like many sentences were lifted verbatim from sources and strung together. There was no organization to the ideas with the same idea being repeated variously throughout. -- Stbalbach 16:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)