User talk:Sanrac1959

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Chevy Impala 2009 (Sign me!) 21:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sanrac1959! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — QuantumEleven 13:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Nicholas Hagger

No problem at all and apologies for getting back to you so late.

1. How do I link the reference numbers in the text to the actual references at the bottom of the page? I added the reference numbers from the button on the toolbar. At present the references are not linked.

To generate the list of references at the bottom of the page add:

"==References==

{{Reflist}}"

Also, there are lots of variations and standards for the citations so take a look at the style guideline and the How To Guide.

2. While editing the page, half of the toolbar disappeared from the top. Can you tell me how to get the full toolbar back (as it is at the top of this article? The one with the ref button on it.)

I'm not following exactly. Take a look at the your preferences (top right hand of the page titled "My Preferences") to see how you have everything set. Do you have "Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)" checked under the "Edit" tab? If so, have you switched computers and to one not allowing javascript? Do you have wikEd checked in the "Gadgets" tab? Poke around and let me know what you find. ?

3. The Bibliography and the Notes at the bottom are in double-line spacing and do not look right. I need help with this, including how to put in the square bullet points.

Square bullet points are created by adding an asterisk (*) at the beginning of each line. See Help:List.

I'll need to check out the line spacing to make sure I'm pointing you in the right direction. Try the bullets to see if it works out for you first.

4. External links, there are some external links I need to put in, at present two are waiting to be added, see bottom of Nicholas Hagger page.

Please make sure to fully understand the external link guidelines. It is common for new editors to not follow WP:ELNO. Check out the dos and donts and other tips on that page.

* [http://examplelink.com/ Description]

5. As I was not sure where to save the edited page for you to have a look at to check, I published it. I do appreciate that the page has not been checked by one of the editors but hope that it will not be deleted this time. It does have red writing at the bottom which refers to the incorrect citing of references. I do not know how to get rid of this. It was not my intention to publish until all the links were perfect, but I was not sure how to transfer all the work I had done to a sandbox.

Copy and paste your page into a personal sandbox. Click on User:Sanrac1959/Sandbox edit it and then save. Do not add categories to this page. I would be happy to look it over but it would probably be best to get feedback from people familiar with the subject. You can ask others who have edited the page (check the "history" of it). You can also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography (Wikipedians who work on biographies).

6. When asking a question, where is the best place to do this? Apologies if this is the wrong place. Maybe you could let me know which is the best way to proceed.

It looks like the article's talk page does not receive much traffic so I assume you won't get a response there which is a shame since it is usually the best place. You can always make a mention at the help desk again but I don't mind you asking me either. Let me know if you need any clarification, have any new questions, or anything else.Cptnono (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging deletion

If you are unhappy with a deletion you should first leave a note on the deleting admins' talk page to ask for clarification of the close and discuss why you don't agree with it. Since you are evidently being paid to do this and I'm not I would suggest that you first read WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I gave your vote very little weight as you clearly are not objective and I also discarded a vote from a new account per SPA. If you want a realistic change of getting this undeleted you need to provide specific independent third party sources from reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail to show why the subject meets our inclusion guidelines. GNG is pretty clear about what we are looking at. If you can do this and bring them to my talk page you will magically find that we can have a very simple conversation where I revisit the close based on new information. Otherwise you are wasting my unpaid volunteer time and that of anyone else who checks my talk page and reads what messages you leave. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you might otherwise claim that you were never given formal notice

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Nicholas Hagger, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Overlord (epic poem). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please discuss, rather than revert. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]