User talk:Naruto Tron
Welcome
Hello, Naruto Tron, and
- visit the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have
- type
{{helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will answer your questions shortly - visit the directory of help pages
There are a lot of standards and policies here, but as long as you are editing
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Your edits
Please read the page history before restoring your edits. Your edit "didn't work" because others removed it. You don't need to label the sections as such. —
Re:Akatsuki
Oh. I'm sorry. The URL on your picture was messed up (you wrote "http://" twice), so I fixed it. I guess I didn't realize I was reverting your question too. o.o;—Loveはドコ? (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not a big deal just wanted to know what happened there. and thanks for trying to fix my URL.
Welcome to WikiProject External links
![]() |
Thank you for joining Wikipedia's External links guidelines. Below are some ongoing tasks for you to take part in, or you can add a task to do. Another great place to check out is Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup. Happy editing, ( arky ) 01:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC) ]
| ||||||
WikiProject External links tasks you can do:
|
My signature
Testing my signature --Naruto Tron 23:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Personal attack pages
Konan
That's not what the passage says, just your interpretation of it, which is original research. —
- My point is that what you see in the passage does not make it relevant, because it's not what the passage says. Literally, it just says that she supposedly died, actually didn't, and now is hot. Non-sequitor if I ever saw one. — T | C) 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)]
- Which, again, is your original research. Something is not made relevant simply because you can interpret it a certain way. Enecyclopedic entries aren't written like that. — T | C) 02:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)]
- Which, again, is your original research. Something is not made relevant simply because you can interpret it a certain way. Enecyclopedic entries aren't written like that. —
== peer review ==
I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the