AnonymousORguy
Welcome
editHello, AnonymousORguy, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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 {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Hi, I'm new to wikipedia, and trying to clean up the mess of the Operations Research page as non-biased a way as I can. It seems to have just been neglected by researchers in the area, and I think it has a lot of problems and awkwardness that could be fixed up. Any quick tips for doing edits that won't be reverted? Thank you in advance! -- AnonymousORguy (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- The most basic rule is to always cite reliable sources. If you anticipate your edits may be controversial, you should explain your rationale at the talk page and refer to the talk page in your edit summary. If your edits do get reverted, again the talk page would be the right place to discuss them and reach a consensus on whether or not they improve the article. Huon (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- news.google.com * and books.google.com * and particularly scholar.google.com can be good starting points for finding reliable sources (but not a plain google search). (*however be wary of the blogs at google news, and we cannot use Icon Press, Books LLC and Hephaestus Press (wikipedia mirrors) iUniverse, Lulu, Xlibris (self publishers) at google books)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Great, that helps. I'll see what I can find to help out the OR page. Thanks! -- AnonymousORguy (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- you can also use sandboxes such as User talk:AnonymousORguy/sandbox to work on a rough draft and request other editors to review prior to taking content to "live" mainspace article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Great, that helps. I'll see what I can find to help out the OR page. Thanks! -- AnonymousORguy (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- news.google.com * and books.google.com * and particularly scholar.google.com can be good starting points for finding reliable sources (but not a plain google search). (*however be wary of the blogs at google news, and we cannot use Icon Press, Books LLC and Hephaestus Press (wikipedia mirrors) iUniverse, Lulu, Xlibris (self publishers) at google books)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
AnonymousORguy, you are invited to the Teahouse
edit
|
Hi AnonymousORguy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |