User talk:AgRince

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, AgRince, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mysdaao ^talk 14:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing new article - where to work

In order to work on a draft, a user subpage is the suggested place. It is easy to create one for a draft. You can do so either at Help:Userspace draft or by using Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0. Please let me know if there are any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao ^talk 14:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AgRince. You have new messages at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page.
Message added 14:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Social Science Research on Greatness

The article Social Science Research on Greatness has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original research; has no place here, appears to be a college paper

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Orange Mike | Talk 18:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The useful parts of that piece should have been added to the article greatness, rather than put into a new separate article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Social Science Research on Greatness

I have nominated Social Science Research on Greatness, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Science Research on Greatness. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your message on my talk page in the Afd discussion referred to above. – ukexpat (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back to your userspace at User:AgRince/Social Science Research on Greatness. When you are ready for it to be reviewed, please ask at the requests for feedback page, but note that it may take several days for one of the volunteers there to get back to you. – ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by your request, but it appears to have been answered by another sysop. Bearian (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for feedback

Thanks for the message. I sense, and sympathise with, your frustration. As you have noticed, there are very few editors who regularly patrol WP:FEED and unless the subject of an article is pretty straightforward, the regulars get out of their depth very quickly. But I think I see a way forward. I will leave a message on the talk page of the Sociology Wikiproject asking for someone to take a look at your draft. It seems to be a pretty active project so someone should respond soon. So, please bear with us, and remember there is no deadline! – ukexpat (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology#Request for review of draft article. – ukexpat (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the request. First quick comment: you need a proper WP:LEAD section. Second: why not just merge your article into the pitful greatness article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked:

1) can i simply drop an entire section (useless in my opinion) of the existing greatness article, ie the "Naming Great" bit?
2) I need to get ok to reference a specific Lulu book as it is central to my article. How do i get such an ok??

Re 1) I'd say yes - it is unreferenced anyway. You may want to move it to talk, perhaps somebody can salvage it later. Re 2) I don't understand your question - what ok do you need to get, from whom, and why? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. What I usually do is I link their books from Google Print - those links are not blacklisted. Also, when citing books, you don't really need any URLs (I link GPrint as it allows direct page links for convenience). If a book has a homepage, it is not usually listed in references (only if a book is notable and has an article about itself, such a link would be fine there). I hope that helps, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please remove the stub template. It is no longer applicable (see WP:STUB). I'd also suggest you nominate your article for main page exposure here. Good job, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that, nice work merging/expanding! It is clearly no longer a stub so I went ahead and removed the {{socio-stub}} template. – ukexpat (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW you asked on my talk page, "...or is that dealt with by wiki editors" - we are all Wikipedia editors! – ukexpat (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the {{ibid}} tag which displays the "broom" notice. One more thing for now, there is a specific template that is preferable to use for citing books - {{Cite book}}, so when you have time, you should change the "bare" details that you have in the References section into "Cite book" details. If you can find ISBN #s for those that do not currently have them, that would be good too as it allows readers to click on the ISBN and find the book either at a library or for sale. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AgRince. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greatness

You seem to be sticking 'Greatness' as a see also on a random rag bag of people. This is anot a reasonable see also for a person however great I think, it should be something relevant to the person rather than some above concept. The way to go around something like this is to put entries that fit into a category into a category, however I can't see a category Grateness as being a reasonably deliniated one. Categories can be got at by links at the bottom of an article page. Dmcq (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About what you wrote on my talk page, linkbacks are not appropriate and that the names are in the article is not a classification. See also is not for random ideas. People can find article that link to an article if they really want to by using the 'what links here' link on the left of the page but really I can't see whyt greatness would warrant a place on the pages. Please see WP:Category about categorizing things which is the closest to what you seem to be trying to do but really I can't see it being a good idea in this case. Dmcq (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback archived

Hello A while ago, you requested some feedback for an article at the Feedback forum. Because it has been up there a while, and you've received some at least useful responses, I have now archived the replies in Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive/27. Please do not edit that page though; if you require further feedback, add a new request on WP:FEED.

I am trying to clear the backlogs; it would help us a lot if you could look at the requests from other users on WP:FEED and add any comments to help them out. Anyone can respond there, so please do take a look, and comment on the articles from other people.

If you want help with anything whilst using Wikipedia, you can either;

Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR

Talk to other users who will be happy to help live, using this.

Thanks again, Chevy monte carlo 05:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]