Talk:Amisk Lake
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Slazenger in topic Vandalism on the infobox
 | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vandalism on the infobox edit
I tagged it for disputed quality, because the infobox information is almost entirely wrong. I'm not sure how much of the rest of the article isn't valid, but it's worth fact checking. Lucas "Shank" Nicodemus (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I did what I could with the time I had. The infobox no longer contains vandalized facts. The image that used to accompany the article has been removed and flagged for deletion per the Wikimedia Commons policy on image deletions. Some random fish data that was a hoax has been removed as well. I couldn't find any information to fix up the infobox - there's probably a book out there somewhere with info on it. Lucas "Shank" Nicodemus (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Vandalism has been removed and the page added to my watchlist to ensure future vandalism is reverted in a timely manner. Additionally, no valid online sources appear to exist for this Amisk Lake. It certainly is a legitimate lake, but no research/statistics are able to be found either from independent nor government sources. As such, I fear this article will remain a stub for a very long time. Hopefully a local resident might be able to shed some light on things for us. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 16:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)