Difference between revisions of "User talk:Leong"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with " == A Word for You == Yes, Mr/Mrs/Apache Fighter Jet/Technicolor Rainbow/Ms Leong: Your recent contribution to 564 was... appreciated, but we do have certain quality guide...")
 
m
 
Line 2: Line 2:
 
== A Word for You ==
 
== A Word for You ==
 
Yes, Mr/Mrs/Apache Fighter Jet/Technicolor Rainbow/Ms Leong:
 
Yes, Mr/Mrs/Apache Fighter Jet/Technicolor Rainbow/Ms Leong:
Your recent contribution to [[564]] was... appreciated, but we do have certain quality guidelines here on ExplainXKCD, and we'd appreciate if you were to adhere to them more strictly. The sitting explanation was perfectly fine and did not need any further modification at the time, though you replaced the whole thing with some snippets of barely-proofread and poorly formatted text from the comments (which you added). We'd appreciate if you were to refrain from doing this in the future. [[User:Papayaman1000|Papayaman1000]] ([[User talk:Papayaman1000|talk]]) 08:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
+
Your recent contribution to [[564]] was... appreciated, but we do have certain quality guidelines here on ExplainXKCD, and we'd appreciate if you were to adhere to them more strictly. The sitting explanation was perfectly fine and did not need any further modification at the time, though you replaced the whole thing with some snippets of barely-proofread and poorly formatted text from the comments (which you added). I'm assuming this was not intentional vandalism, but we'd still appreciate if you were to refrain from doing this in the future. [[User:Papayaman1000|Papayaman1000]] ([[User talk:Papayaman1000|talk]]) 08:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:19, 20 November 2016

A Word for You[edit]

Yes, Mr/Mrs/Apache Fighter Jet/Technicolor Rainbow/Ms Leong: Your recent contribution to 564 was... appreciated, but we do have certain quality guidelines here on ExplainXKCD, and we'd appreciate if you were to adhere to them more strictly. The sitting explanation was perfectly fine and did not need any further modification at the time, though you replaced the whole thing with some snippets of barely-proofread and poorly formatted text from the comments (which you added). I'm assuming this was not intentional vandalism, but we'd still appreciate if you were to refrain from doing this in the future. Papayaman1000 (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)