Talk:Battle of the Immortals

Latest comment: 8 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Regarding personal opinions

edit

I've noticed personal opinions within the Cash Shop segment. Please do refrain from editing into the article, anything that is secondary to the article, such as "what you think of a Cash Shop". Wikipedia is a "tell the users what is important about this piece of information" place, not a "personal ranting station". The only time you can exclude this and put in as actual fact is when a notable source says the same, and even then you must cite the source. By "notable" it has to be a site on a similar area of interest to IGN.com. Pasonia (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Immortals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply