User talk:219.79.104.131

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Monosodium glutamate, 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. Thank you. Sakkura 16:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Monosodium glutamate. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sakkura 02:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

 It's not unconstructive. I have found the source of the supposedly-claimed "chain email". It can be verified but I added that there was a disclaimer
 so that readers can choose whether or not to be believe it.
 
   Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of
   Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or
   the insertion of nonsense into articles.
   
   Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful 
   edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an 
   article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious,
   nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are
   beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.
   
 In fact, although I received that supposedly-claimed "chain email" personally, I went on the Internet to locate the source
 of the email (source of email). It was a misfortune that the "email" seemed extremely provocative.
 If I were to improve the article in a way that it becomes truly encyclopedia-article-like, could I, administrators?
 
 Test-me0 03:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize, I only assumed the edits were vandalism since it wouldn't be the first time anonymous users slap suspicious links on as references while making controversial claims in articles. If you wish to put the content back into the article, you have to find a better source. I've posted this message on the talk page of User:Test-me0 since that seems to be your account. Sakkura 03:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)