User talk:NebraskaDontAsk

 Hello NebraskaDontAsk, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
 * Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

NebraskaDontAsk, good luck, and have fun. -- role player 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

bulldog stadium
your edit was reverted because the inline reference was a duplicate of the the reference below, and it was malformed and not properly formatted. also the single reference buttresses the entire article, not just the one paragraph or statement. --emerson7 18:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

War of 1812
I'm reverting your reversion of my move because the reflist BELONGS lower. The cite errors you mention have to be fixed. The Harvard ref system requires a lower reflist. I am however a skilled editor so thanks for bringing this matter to my attention. I am reverting you by I will work on those errors immediately. If it is going to take more time I will put it back. I cannot see where they are without reverting you. So, bear with me. We don't fix one error by making another less visible, we fix the errors. Thanks.Dave (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It seemed like a logical move to place the Footnotes, with the reflist tag. at the bottom of the page, especially since the References section was general article references rather than references to specific items and they had notations made to them. I will defer to you on this though as you quite involved in the article and I am not familiar with the Harvard standards. I was just watching pages with missing references section when it popped up.NebraskaDontAsk (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, the harvref system is different. Most of the notes are in it but it is all done wrong. We can either fix harvref or do it some other way. Harvref is so concise I am inclined to fix it, especially since there are over 100 notes. I'm going to do all this now but it will take a few days. Ciao.Dave (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

More on War of 1812
Hi buddy. I found out what the problem is. We have references on the references. What a mess. You have text items, then you have references on the text items to give the sources for them. What WE have are references on the references! No, no, that is not the way it works. Why do that? To explain the source of the references? The reference is the source, you don't have to explain where you got it. I suspect whoever did this is reacting to the attempt to shorten the External LInks, as the references on the references are all external links! What is the editor trying to say, he copied the reference from this site? We don't need to do that. Just list the book or article. KISS. You don't have to say where you got it. So, I'm going to change these. When I am done I will put the references in the proper location. It appears as though this problem is so bad I need to fix the references now rather than work on some other articles first. I think you will like it when I am done; however, I'm not yet checking references, only reference formats. Ciao.Dave (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)