User talk:Warriorajax

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Nuclear overload


The article Nuclear overload has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * this cites no sources and seems to be a personal essay or original research.

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  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  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. JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone is allowed to object to a PROD, such as I put on your article, for any reason. I take your comment on the talk page to be an objection, so instead I have nominated it for deletion under the Articles for Deletion procedure - the formal notice about this is below. For the reason why I have nominated it, please read No Original Research, which is one of Wikipedia's core content policies - this is not the place for first publication of anything new. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Nuclear overload
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Nuclear overload meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Nuclear overload. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. JohnCD (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear overload
Generally, articles would have to have sources coming from thiry-party publications/sites, etc., so original research is discouraged and can be challenged if some info are not sourced. Sources must be reliable as well so forum discussions and blogs are generally discouraged as sources - as you might know blogs and forums might incorrect info or just spreading rumors, etc. I'm sure there are many reliable sites that might discuss this term. Using other Wikipedia pages as references/sources are not really encouraged as well. They can be used in a see also section, main page header (at the start of the article section) and can be linked from the article. See WP:SOURCE for more detailed info.

As for how the composition of the article, generally, the lead paragraph is explaning the term and some main points. The body sections might be discuss the origin of the term, the history and also discuss maybe explanation by theorists and maybe some examples (I see North Korea mentionned there). That some of the examples of themes that can be discussed in the body - origin, history, point of views of theorists, etc. Then at the end, there is the see also, external links and templates, etc.

Headings are pretty easy to make/type. Basically the first header the biggest one only needs to have two equal signs at each end (i.e see the title of the section I added), for a sub-section you add one equal sign on each side and so on. Starting a new section then you return to the biggest side (two equal signs) See the example below and a [Wikipedia page example. Look at the content table also to see the organization.

==Sources== ===Types of sources=== ====Primary sources====

As for how to type sources. In order to view the sources, you would have to add a section under the see also section which would be titled as References and type (without putting the nowiki signs - to avoid disrupting the page) There are various ways to cite. Usually I type:. But there are several other ways to cite as well.

In the case of newspapers the lines while others are adding the lines |last = | first = instead of |author =.
 * page = is there rather then |url=

See also WP:Citing sources

If you are instead putting a bibliography or published works section which is allowed in an article the format is generally the following (as per my school experience), last name, first name (or group/organization), title, publisher, date/momth/year published, volume (if it is a magazine for example) and number of pages.

As a last note you can always look at Article development as a guide as well for other things I have not mentionned. JForget 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgot to add a point. Would you like to have a copy of the deleted article and placed as a userfied version? You can do the necessary improvements so when it is ready to be returned as an article you can reput it directly as an article providing that it is significantly improved from the version so to avoid being speedy deleted per criteria G4 as being a recreation of a deleted article after a deletion discussion without significant improvements or on the safe side you can send it to deletion review. JForget  01:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)