User talk:Wcoole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Wcoole, 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:

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! Wizard191 (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Refrencing tool[edit]

For books, which are accessed through Google Book search and for New York Times Articles, the recommended google tool for use in Wikipedia is this [1]. It saves lot of time in formatting and is very accurate. When more than one page or many several pages at different sections of the article are to be cited from a particular book then [1] supplements this tool in which case the main book format is given under Bibliography. I hope it clarifies my method of referencing articles. try it out on some of your articles.--Nvvchar. 14:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of GreenWood[edit]

Hello Wcoole,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged GreenWood for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Swpbtalk 21:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject, and your interest in doing things right. The main guidelines are Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you're coming up short on Google, then there's a good chance the kind of sources we need just don't exist. In that case, it's best to recognize that, while the subject may be interesting, and may become important in the future, it's just not possible to create a neutral, verifiable article on it right now. Swpbtalk 13:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
That sounds fine, just be sure you don't duplicate a topic that's already covered. If the subject you have in mind is an aspect or version of sustainable development, it might be wiser to add a section to that existing article, rather than create a new one. Swpbtalk 22:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)