User talk:John Bragdon

DuncanHill 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Signing your posts
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. DuncanHill 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not Remove Content
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. DuncanHill 20:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is in relation to your changes to your unsigned post on the Computer Help Desk. Your changes appear to be designed to make the posting look like it was made by another user. Please read the Welcome Box above, and the notice I gave you about signing your posts. Thank you. DuncanHill 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I need some help signing. --Gungnir 20:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To sign, simply type ~ or click on the signature box above the edit window. I would also point out that there is already a User called User:Gungnir, and that signatures should not mislead as to the identity of the poster. DuncanHill 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I will change it right away, I didn't know. But I don't want my full name/user id showing up  just my signature. Sorry, but I am new.--Gungnir 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You can read lots more about signatures here Signatures. By the way, to indent text without it displaying in a little box you type a : at the start of the paragraph. DuncanHill 20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

New User
Wikipedia can be confusing to all of us - not just to new users! Do have a good read through the information above, there are some really useful links there, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. DuncanHill 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at many of the links but I am still unhappy. Actually, I am definitely upset and frustrated about the user name signature. --iceplanet 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How will I know if my signature is unique enough?--iceplanet 20:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One way is to type User:nameyouwanttocheck into the search box at the left, click on search. This should show if there is a user (but if there is a user with that name who has not created a userpage, then you won't see this until you click on "User contributions"). There is a user called Iceplanet, they have made 1 edit about a year ago, and haven't created a userpage or received a message. Generally, if your signature causes problems, then someone will tell you!. If you need help from an admin (these are the users with extra editing privileges, such as deleting pages or blocking users) then typing at the bottom of this page - this generates a message to admins, and one will turn up to help you. It might be a good idea for you to try this, to check if your signature is OK, and to see if/how you can change it to one that you are happy with. DuncanHill 21:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How about this signature?--IceXchange 21:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see any trace of a user by that name, so it should be fine! (fingers crossed). DuncanHill 21:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found some more info about usernames at Username policy which might be helpful too. DuncanHill 21:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also mention that although I am a new member, I found the information on one topic in the past to be very accurate and useful. More recently though I found the information under one topic controversial. I felt that it was using the established academic consensus in a separate branch of the same general field as an explanation or inherent definition of a completely different branch or topic. I think it is misleading, inaccurate and debatable. I am reluctant to mention the topic though. --IceXchange 21:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Be Bold! - if you feel you can improve an article, then go ahead! We all have to start somewhere. If the changes you would like to see could be controversial, then it's a good idea to float them on the article's talk page first, and try to build a consensus on a way forward. DuncanHill 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)