User talk:Erinscime

Welcome!

Hello, Erinscime, 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hi Erin, thanks for your suggestion of a relevant ref. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple cites to ref

Try this:

Moscow.<ref name="Bonaparte, 1815" >Reference citation - maybe using the {{Cite}} templates </ref>

Marengo.<ref name="Bonaparte, 1815" />

Waterloo.<ref name="Bonaparte, 1815" />

Note the / in the XML tagsAndy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotion, conflict of interest

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jamie - get a Clue.

This new editor is clearly guilty of that worst of all Wikicrimes - Knowing Something About The Subject. Even worse, they're published on the topic. Why don't you just call for an indef blcok and ban right now, before they really start messing the place up by adding content of all things? Wikipedia won't be safe for pointless self-serving administrivia until we've rid it completely of the vile scourge of Real Knowledge.

Despite being a new editor (and such a dreadful newbie that they didn't even understand MediaWiki cite syntax immediately. N00b!) they did manage to find the way through our fearsome mass of policy and vindictive custom (or maybe they're just polite this way) and didn't add a useful ref to a relevant article. They did what they're supposed to do in a case of borderline COI like this - they noted it on talk: and asked other editors for their opinion first and if they'd be prepared to add it on their behalf. Well I read it, and I did. It's a good article and worth reading. It's certainly worth adding to our article of digital curation.

Have you read WP:BITE (and the minutiae of WP:COI) or is it simply too far back in yoru wikicareer for you to trouble your Olympian majesty with such dross? We are losing editors like crazy, we're losing the good editors fastest of all. This sort of reaction to new editors, and editors who appear to have valuable content knowledge to offer, not just a desire to become instant admins, is one of the root causes of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is exactly why I would vote for Andy Dingley for global sheriff. :D

Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]