User talk:Americascupfreak

Changes to Universal Rule which damaged the article

You recently made a number of changes to the article on Universal Rule which are causing problems. The changes seem to consist of just a random, unstructured set of partial notes and some book references: it is not at all clear what you were trying to achieve, but those changes have caused the reference list to fail. Please fix them or revert them, so the article functions properly. I would do it myself, but I cannot tell what you were trying to achieve. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoneNever mind - Auric seems to have made sense of it. Gronk Oz (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your questions at User talk:A930913

You asked a couple of questions at A930913's talk page. They're far off-topic for that place; if you require general assistance, you can try the help desk or the Teahouse, which is geared towards help for new editors. Regarding the questions you asked:

See WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes for your references.
A new section heading is created by double equality signs:

== Section heading ==

See WP:Cheatsheet for a quick overview of the most common elements of wiki markup.

I can't tell what supposedly was removed from the Universal Rule article; the article talk page is the place to discuss improvements of the article with other editors. If there's something on the talk page which could serve to improve the article, you're of course welcome to make that improvement.
I expect one of the reasons we haven't approached the editors of "Wooden Boat" magazine for editing is that many Wikipedia editors probably are unaware of their expertise regarding the Universal Rule. Another is that those people may have better things to do with their time than edit Wikipedia; it seems a little intrusive to email strangers with a request of "Hey, could you please invest hours of your time in a project I don't know you're interested in?" If the magazine has published on the Universal Rule, I'd suggest you summarize in your own words what those publications say about the subject; since Wikipedia content should be based on published sources, the magazine's editors couldn't do much more than that anyway.
My suggestion would be not to work on a separate copy until it's ready, but to directly edit the Universal Rule article instead; incremental improvements are generally preferred to a complete rewrite in one go. That way other editors can see what you're working on and can provide input or help.

I hope this answers your questions. Huon (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up, Sorry

Thanks for everybody on cleaning up after me. Sorry! Thank them for me too!!

This system has a steep learning curve. I will search how to get the keystrokes for the vertical bar to use talkback. I have been studying what it takes for a couple of days. See that one remark of me might be construed as Original Resource. Will not be getting into a discussion about that, will try to comply. No German scources allowed; a pity; I remember "Die Yacht magazin" deutschland as one of the great resources on yachting back then. No Google books also, cannot get in as a scholar?

What next? first clean up references? and then work at two lines at a time every two days?21:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)~

Foreign-language sources are entirely acceptable, though English-language sources obviously are preferred if availiable. See WP:NONENG for details. Yacht clearly is a reliable source. What isn't a reliable source, though, is Wikipedia itself - other Wikipedia articles are linked as a convenience for our readers, but they should never be used as references. Huon (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]