User talk:Pcwarden1990

2009_EERERI — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMDomG (talk • contribs) 02:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&action=edit&section=17

Take a look at the abortion article link above for an idea of how to go about creating a new article that is based on surrounding controversy of a broader topic. I also took down the request for speedy deletion on your new I-81 article, but I would suggest you meet the requirements that the notices posted on the page detail. Be sure to write on that article's talk page to defend it against deletion AMDomG (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, roadfan!

Hello, Pcwarden1990, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

If you are interested, there is already a community of users who are roadfans or who edit articles about roads, just like you! Stop by any of these WikiProjects — WP:HWY (worldwide), WP:CRWP (Canada), WP:INR (India), WP:UKRD (United Kingdom), or WP:USRD (United States) — and contribute. For those in the United States, there is an excellent new user's guide. There is a wealth of information and resources for creating a great article. If you have questions about any of these WikiProjects, you can ask on each project's talk page, or you can ask me!

If you like communicating through IRC, feel free to ask questions at #wikipedia-en-roads ^connect as well. Here, there are several editors who are willing to answer your questions. For more information, see WP:HWY/IRC.

Again, welcome! Imzadi 1979 → 21:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work on it in your Sandbox?

I agree with Dominic's suggestion on how writing a controversial article with a NPOV. Try to refine your article in your sandbox. I'm not sure if Dom went over creating a sandbox in your user page with you but type in "User:name/sandbox" on your user page. Bonkong (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is also a video tutorial on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tutorial_on_starting_a_sandbox_article_on_Wikipedia.ogv. Bonkong (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see more articles discussing the public policy and political aspects of highway construction. You may wish to expand your research to include the controversial widening of I-81 south of Syracuse through the Indian reservation. Good luck and please call on me if you have questions. Racepacket (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Large I-81-construction.JPG.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Large I-81-construction.JPG.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or provided a license tag. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, select the appropriate license tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you can't find a suitable license tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Large I-81-construction.JPG.jpeg

A tag has been placed on File:Large I-81-construction.JPG.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kinu ^t/_c 19:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I applaud your enthusiasm at editing this article, but I'm going to offer you a few pieces of advice.

Wikipedia prefers secondary sources for its information. That means books, journals, magazines or newspapers; sources that are all one step removed from the original information. Using anything directly from http://thei81challenge.org/ isn't really a good idea. That's going to be a primary source. If the same information is covered in the Post-Standard, that would be much better. The same thing goes for any advocacy or citizens groups. Their websites are all primary sources.
Citations need at a minimum: author(s), title, publisher, publisher location, date of publication. If the source is online, they also need an access date. Then if a link goes dead, we have a known date when the link was good to find an archived copy. I've been using the various citation templates, {{cite web}}, {{cite news}} and {{cite book}} to reformat your sources since they will accept the information under different template parameters and consistently output the citation. You don't have to use the templates, but it is recommended that you stop using "bare urls" as your citations.
If you're going to reuse the exact same source as multiple citations, you should "name" the reference. If you look, footnote 2 (the editorial from the Post-Standard) shows up with the letters "a" and "b" next to it in the reference list. Thats because instead of just typing <ref>...</ref> I changed it to be <ref name=editorial>...</ref>. Then when the reference gets repeated, all I had to do was use <ref name=editorial/>. Any reference can be named like that, and they can be reused multiple times.

I hope that you find these notes helpful. Imzadi 1979 → 04:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Article

Time to move it out of the sandbox. It will be better developed with community feedback. Bonkong (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]