User talk:Archlich631: Difference between revisions
>LegacymtgsalvationUser8147 No edit summary |
>Archlich631@legacy41915729 No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
It's ok. But remember to sign your messages. Just write <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. --<b><span style="color:red">[[User:MORT|<sup><sup>M</sup></sup><sup>O</sup>R<sub>T</sub>]]</span></b> <sup><b>[[User talk: MORT|(T)]]</b></sup> 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | It's ok. But remember to sign your messages. Just write <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. --<b><span style="color:red">[[User:MORT|<sup><sup>M</sup></sup><sup>O</sup>R<sub>T</sub>]]</span></b> <sup><b>[[User talk: MORT|(T)]]</b></sup> 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
Ok, I will. [[User:Archlich|Archlich]] 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:35, 6 July 2007
Hi and thanks for your help! You asked about prerevisionist sources few times, so I thought I'd explain. There are two policies concerning it. First says that any place/person/event/other thing that appeared or was mentioned in any form in pre-rev sources (so its concept was created before revision started) has Category:Prerevisionist. Second rule is that all pre-rev info is canon unless revisionist sources contradict them. Sure, you're right that it should be clearly marked where is revisionist part and where pre-rev one. Although, so far articles with mixed pre-rev/rev are rather rare or saying about different time periods - so there is no real problem. Anyway, creating more clear distinction between pre-rev and rev info in articles is a matter of (hopefully, near) future. --MORT (T) 21:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm new to this site, so hopefully I'm doing everything correctly.
Thanks for the information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Archlich (talk • contribs).
It's ok. But remember to sign your messages. Just write ~~~~. --MORT (T) 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I will. Archlich 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)