User talk:Roger1uk

Welcome!
Hello, Roger1uk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! DThomsen8 (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Deletion discussion about The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry
Hello, Roger1uk,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, elphantsandbacon   Care to talk? 15:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry
The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry is a well done article, and I was pleased to review it as a new article. I have done some small changes, including some section name changes. I did tag it as needing inline citations. The AfD will be reviewed and probably rescued by the Article Rescue Squadron.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Roger, this will never be deleted. Your original content may be edited, but the article will remain.  Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did not understand 'inline citations' but assume it refers to references at suitable places in the article pointing to external matter, or to the published text being discussed. So I have re-inserted the page refs. I carefully removed when pasting in my copy for the plot summary. As an editor myself, I ask writers of book reviews to dispense with such refs. as far as possible, though for articles footnotes are indispensable.


 * I may not have succeeded in what I set out to do: the first reference in the plot summary is intended to be a footnote giving the edition used (the first and only edition, so far), and the page (20), plus a note saying that the remaining page refs. will be in the text of the article. Roger1uk (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What you suggest about a footnote for the edition is possible. I will look. Incidentally, you should put a colon (or more) to indent on talk page comments. I added colons for your two paragraphs, and used two for my reply. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Disconcerting that some one has removed the page references I inserted in answer to the criticism about lack of inline citations. There is now a conflict with the statement in the footnote about remaining refs. Perhaps the same person made a couple of weak additions to the plot summary.Roger1uk (talk)


 * The deleted page references in the plot summary have been restored, plus other minor edits. Roger1uk (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2014
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Jesus. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.  Neil N  talk to me  19:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Roger1uk. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * 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.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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.  Neil N  talk to me  19:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)