User talk:NaGromOne

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, NaGromOne, 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! Twenty Years 13:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Help request[edit]

{{helpme}} I've just spent 2 solid days researching and writing my first article, and suddenly some of the links have turned red. I think I created links from those pages to the one I am writing before I finished the page. What can I do?NaGromOne (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi there. Do you mean User:NaGromOne/NII Awards? If so, 'CitySpace' is a redlink because it says [[CitySpace]] and the article is actually called 'Cityspace' without a capital S. Similarly, [[MicroMUSE]] is red because the article is called 'MicroMuse'. Article names are case-sensitive. Hope this answers. For more help, you can either;
  • Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
  • Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
  • Talk to us live.

Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  14:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


Help request[edit]

{{helpme}} I see my role (being a professional Librarian) to provide useful cross reference hyperlinks for the general public who consult Wikipedia articles. I have tried in the past to add cross references to the article Immanuel_Velikovsky by creating a [[1]] to "The Case for Taking Velikovsky Seriously" by James P. Hogan which is an online full text version of his published book. Every attempt to add this link was immediately removed by User:Phaedrus7 who accused me of promoting pseudoscience, etc.

In the end I just gave up and left Wikipedia alone for a few months, very disillusioned with the way Wikipedia seemed to be run by Phaedrus7 and others who were allowed to ridicule me, what they considered my 'beliefs' and my understanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Now that time has passed and the insults have faded, I thought I'd come back and this time get advice before trying again.

Was I being biased? Was the link to the online full text incorrect? Should I have pointed to the hardcopy only? Was I violating NPoV ? What should I do when subjected to scathing and belittling comments and immediate "undo" of my efforts?

NaGromOne (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, and a sincere 'welcome back'. Please don't be disappointed by your early experiences - bear with Wikipedia for a while, and I hope that you will find, things can always be worked out.
Without commenting on the specific 'right and wrong' of the case, and remaining neutral, I can explain about the correct procedure–which I think will answer your more fundamental question.
Whilst we strongly encourage editors to be bold, the applicable policy is WP:BRD - bold, revert, discuss. Anyone can add something, and anyone else can remove it, but, at that point, we have to stop and discuss it.
All matters on Wikipedia are decided through consensus - so, if you add something to an article and another user objects, you should start a discussion about it on the articles discussion page, and see what other editors think.
If it is not possible to reach an amicable agreement, we have many options for helping resolve it - such as getting a third opinion, asking for informal mediation, right up to more formal procedures - but the most important thing, in all cases, is to discuss the content with other editors, and if necessary, accept the views of the consensus. See WP:DISPUTE.
For more help, you can either;
  • Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
  • Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
  • Talk to us live, with this or this.
The last of those is particularly useful - please try it; pop in now and say hello.  Chzz  ►  03:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Link once again undone straight away (see above)[edit]

I did as Chzz suggested, and for added measure this time made the link a footnote, so the reader would have to follow it to find the citation I added. Within 12 hours, my work was Undone by Phaedrus7 again, with the notation "Undid revision 355089395 by NaGromOne. Improper citation to a book chapter."

Following the guidelines from our chat, I added a section to the Talk page entitled "Link from Immanuel Velikovsky to James P. Hogan book chapter"

Apologies for not coding the citation correctly. How would you recommend the information be entered (to the book and/or the chapter online), so the link can be inserted correctly, please?--NaGromOne (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am hoping they will respond helpfully, in the spirit of Wikipedia NPOV.

Book Chapter Citation[edit]

For guidance on providing reference to a chapter in a book, examine the References list in the Immanuel Velikovsky entry; for example, no. 38 James Gilbert's Redeeming Culture. However, I do not consider Hogan's discussion of Velikovsky important because he provides nothing new and merely repeats the same myth of the Velikovsky Affair that has circulated since the mid-1960s. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David L. Fulton[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article David L. Fulton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no clear claim to notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hupaleju (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)