The article is for a person named Vince Graham. I have read thru the instructions and such but it is bewildering to me. Need help to submit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.210.150 (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- kainaw™ 02:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone leaves a message for me on my talk page, and I respond to it there, will they be notified that I've responded? Is it better to post my response on their talk page instead? Thanks for your help. Rckrone (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you respond on your own talk page, you can inform other editors by leaving Template:Talkback on their talk page. Sometimes other editors will watchlist your user talk and will reply once they notice you have replied. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a shortcut, just type TB|[Your Username] in the brackets and it would be faster.

Please reply on my message boards! Larsona 14:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an essey on the Brent Oil that we can see just what is in the oil

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.24.221 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the article on Brent Crude useful. It's a type of crude characteristic of the North Sea. Somewhat similar to West Texas crude, but a bit heavier, more sulfur, formerly less expensive (that's changed). Antandrus (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working with a group of actors. I am writing pages for them... I know how to code them protected but need to get verified. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozartchic01 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Only administrators can protect pages and it's only done in certain situations. Autoconfirmed users can edit semi-protected pages. See more at Wikipedia:Protection policy. It sounds like you should also see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with my footnotes. I am afraid I am going to lose all my work I have done on my current entry. I need to get some sleep. Can you help me with my footnotes? Defgirl666 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Phyllis[reply]

Are you referring to the Fiona Bloom draft now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Green sandbox? I have fixed a few malformed tags there and all the references are now showing. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

There is a page that references me as an actress, but the link is a dead end as I don't have a page yet. Should I enlist someone to create a page, or rather let it stay as a dead-end? I believe it could be helpful for my work to have a page.

Thanks so much in advance for all your help!

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.66.93 (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! If you are notable, I would be glad to create an article for you if you tell me your name. Goodvac (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first article and I didn't know it would require such extensive formatting to conform to Wikipedia style practices. I hit save because I was prompted to do so and I did not see any way to edit in the "sandbox" that was referred to. Now the article is public and I am trying to master the Wikipedia conventions and markup language and that's going to take several days. I would prefer to do that privately. Can I pull it back to an edit mode only so it will not be public until it's finished? wmhanks (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you're referring to the Thorne Webb Dreyer article. I've moved the article to your userspace, User:Wmhanks/Thorne Webb Dreyer. Feel free to edit it there. And when you're done, you can move it back.

Now, I guess I'll look in to how to get the redirect deleted... Dismas|^(talk) 06:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UP#Deleting your user page or subpages. Note the final paragraph. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't a big deal, but in the Baker, Nevada page the Pop Culture reference says "Baker was featured in the film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas as a meeting point for Benicio Del Toro and Johnny Depp." This is incorrect, the meeting point was Baker, California. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.178.150 (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baker, Nevada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor has removed it. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am using {{Time|CET}} on my userpage, but somehow I feel there is a discrepancy. It constantly seems to display 01:16 and even refreshing the page / clearing my browser cache seems to have no effect. Can somebody help with that or perhaps explain what I am doing wrong (if anything)? My time zone is CEST, so according to this page it should display as ca 08:49 right now, but constantly displays as 01:16 for me. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The server is showing you a cached version of the page instead of rebuilding its contents every time. I made it jump forwards to the current time by purging the page, but it is now stuck again. I don't know of any way round this. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to redirect the page to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Toshio_Yamaguchi?action=purge? I guess that would make it work if it were possible. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think there is. I suggest you ask your first question again at WP:VPT. It could be that the template was useful when it was first created, but is now useless because of five years improvements to the server caching. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please remove the tag off of the Carl Jackson (filmmaker) page? I have added source info as asked from Wiki.

The one link in the references section, http://www.homemediamagazine.com does not mention Carl Jackson at all. The external link is not a reliable source, so what you added is not sufficient to remove the BLP Prod. GB fan 13:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to buy some LED Bulbs for Decorate my house, and I was heard that there are many cheaters online, I don`t know how to choose a good reliable online store. Could anyone give me some advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason lei (talk • contribs) 09:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Help desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please post your question at the appropriate section of the Wikipedia reference desk. - 194.60.106.17 (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to tell them which country you are in. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a tag thing that says something like "this article needs citations for verification" at the top of article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.77.182 (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add either {{refimprove}} or {{references}} to the top of the article. Dismas|^(talk) 09:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When viewing a Wikipedia article is there a way to view only the "introduction" section? The reason I ask is that I was thinking of writing a GreaseMonkey script that displays the intro section of linked articles as a tooltip. Also, fetching this info via the API would be ideal, but I don't find the documentation very helpful... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.97.205 (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out somebody already created one. If it is of any interest to other people the script is http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/5591 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.97.205 (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about doing this within Wikipedia, are you aware that if you create an account and login, you can then enable popups, which does just that? --ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of these pages is the most up to date?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genomic_DNA_library

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_library

They both contain the same information, one slightly more than the other, I was wondering if someone could collaborate both the pages into one, and delete the other, so as to avoid confusion in the future... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.175.140 (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those links are redirects to the same article, Library (biology). There is no difference in the information. GB fan 13:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Readers, especially unregistered users, may sometimes see a cached version of a former page. The two links have different url's and may display different cached versions to some viewers. They are the same to me. If you see an old version of a page then a purge should fix it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have been asked by my employer Simon Banoub to change the current Opta page to give more insight into the company, but as I have made changes and practically deleted everything he wrote it is saying it is going to delete the page in a week. Saying something along the lines that I need to add information and not take all of it off. So I have altered what I wrote to kind of fit it with what he originally wrote, but still had to delete some lines out of it.

Please can you advise me how I stop the page getting deleted.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eparkinson (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need reliable *independent* sources that are *about* the company - so not simply mentions that company X uses your stats service but articles that are actually about the business itself (it's formation, development etc etc). Without that type of reference, it's like the article will be deleted. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you, if I do this will it save my changes? As if I leave the page then go back all my changes are gone. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eparkinson (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it is a question regarding the Opta page again, how to you make an organization notable?

The company has been running since 1996 very credible how do i prove this?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eparkinson (talk • contribs) 13:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Opta Sports were reverted because they were not written from a Neutral Point of View (lots of "We"s) and very promotional. It sounds like you have a Conflict of Interest.Vrenator ^talk 14:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates under some core principles regarding articles. One of those is Verifiability. Briefly that means information in an article previously must have been published elsewhere, otherwise the information is considered what Wikipedia calls original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. This leads to another core principle called Notability, which briefly means the amount of existing verifiable information on the subject (for example the organization) must be substantial. For example if I come up with an idea and make a website about it, Wikipedia cannot have an article about that idea, unless the idea has received significant coverage by other sources (such as news websites, magazines, newspapers etc.). Wikipedia has a specific guideline on the notability of organizations and companies (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). And to make things even more confusing, articles on Wikipedia must be written from a Neutral point of view which can be very diffficult, especially if you have a Conflict of Interest as pointed out in the previous reply. Since you are connected to the company, you are naturally biased in favor of the company. Therefore, the best for you to do is the following: Show that the company has received coverage in sources such as newspapers, magazines or news reports and bring that up at Talk:Opta Sports. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been urged to use the "Talk" page for communication with editors, administrators, volunteers, etc. However, when I go to the "Talk" page I see no field or link where I can enter my question or comment. I have tried to do this a number of times and have searched the Help pages and found no step by step guide to talking on the "Talk" page. I see the comments of others so I know there must be some way to do it. I am a writer and film producer whose work has won awards in International competition, has been translated into 126 different languages, and has been distributed world-wide by the U. S. Information Agency. I don't enjoy feeling stupid. I hope someone may help me find my experience with Wikipedia more enjoyable.

I have used the email form several times because it's the only one that seems to have an actual place to enter my question or comment. Then when I do use the email link (which actually seems to work) I am corrected in a way that implies stupidity on my part for not using the "Talk" page. Perhaps if the interface were more "user friendly" my dumb old brain would be able to grasp how to use it. I have used computers extensively since 1984 on several different platforms and operating systems, have designed and published websites, and am thoroughly acquainted with the World Wide Web (WWW) from Tim Berners-Lee's first implementation to the present standards. So, I cannot offer total ignorance as a defense of my lack of skills.

The truth is that the Wikipedia interface is not intuitive, for example many links do not appear to be "live" until mouse-over reveals the link. It reminds me of the old computer games where to find a secret door you had to walk up and down every wall hitting the "action" key constantly to see what opens. However I am new to Wikipedia and am willing, and actually, even eager to use the interface if I can only find out how. Please help with how to use the "Talk" page (mainly how to enter a question, comment, or response). Thank you for your time. wmhanks (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to edit an existing topic on an article's talk page or a user's talk page, hit the [Edit] link at the top of that section. If you want to add a new topic, click the [Add topic] tab at the top of the page. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more likely to say "New section" than "Add topic". See more at Help:Using talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of idle curiosity, therefore, what is it in my settings that makes it say "Add topic"? Presumably something in preferences, but what? - David Biddulph (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it depends on which skin you are using. Monobook has different titles than Vector, if I remember correctly. TNXMan 15:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two things that affect the name of this tab: skin and language setting. If the language setting is "en - English", the tab is either "New section" (Vector skin) or "new section" (Monobook skin); but if the language setting is "en-GB - British English", the tab is either "Add topic" (Vector skin) or "+" (Monobook skin). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Preferences → Gadgets → Change the "new section" tab text to instead display the much narrower "+". ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm drifting off topic a bit, but what else is affected by the choice between "en - English" and "en-GB - British English"? Is there a help page somewhere which explains? - David Biddulph (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my view: [1]. If you help new users with the interface then I especially disrecommend en-gb. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the help, wmhanks (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some pages on my watchlist, and it has been telling me when the pages on my watchlist have been edited. But recently, it stopped working. I was wondering if anyone could tell me if there is an opition in the prefrences that I may have un-checked. I already looked, but I found none.

Thank you for your help!

Larsona (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist has options to hide some types of edits from the watchlist. At Special:EditWatchlist you can check which pages are on your watchlist. Can you give an example of a page that is listed there and should be displayed on your watchlist but isn't? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is checked in the "hidden" catagories. Like this page. I had to look at this page to know that it was edited. I don't think thats right.

Larsona 21:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see a blue star and not a white star on a tab at top of this page? If you see a white star then click it. Is "Wikipedia:Help desk" listed at Special:EditWatchlist? What does it say at "Days to show in watchlist" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist? What does it say at "Maximum number of changes to show in expanded watchlist"? Is "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" checked? Are any pages at all shown at Special:Watchlist? When you say "it has been telling me when the pages on my watchlist have been edited", do you mean the pages were shown at Special:Watchlist when you clicked "My watchlist", or that you received emails or something else? Was it pages at the English Wikipedia with url's beginning with http://en.wikipedia.org? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use a different theme in Wikipedia, and it's a little different for me. But when I do find the place that you can watch/stop watching this page, it askes me if I want to stop watching it. 3 Days to show in watchlist, and it does not tell me even when my talk was edited. When you loged in to find my message on your talk page, I'm guessing that it showed you the little yellow box that says "You have new messages (last change)". I have no email attached to my account. On a side note, it shows what looks like a points value be each last edit. Yes it was en.wikipedia.com. Is it even to tell you when there is an edit other than a edit to my talk page?

Larsona 14:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain whether you have the correct understanding of how the watchlist works. There is no automatic notification when a page on somebodys watchlist has been edited. In order to find out whether a page on your watchlist has been edited you have to click the "My watchlist" link displayed on all pages (at the top in the default Vector skin but it may be different for you). See Help:Watching pages. The orange banner seen at Help:Using talk pages#You have new messages is only shown when your user talk page User talk:Larsona has been edited by somebody else. Does this clear up the situation or are you saying that edits to pages on your watchlist are not displayed when you click "My watchlist"? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found it works! Its the computer that I primarly use. I opened up wikipedia on another computer and it displayed the message, only it was to let me know that some templates of mine were going to be deleted. I guess I can't go to the help desk for a non-wikipedia problem. Thank you for your help though.

Larsona 14:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still suspect you misunderstand how the watchlist works. You only got the orange new messages banner because somebody edited User talk:Larsona in [2]. The orange banner is displayed if your user talk page has been edited by somebody else since you last viewed it. You would have seen the banner no matter which computer you were first logged in on after your talk page was edited. The watchlist and the orange new messages banner are completely different things. Changes to any other page than User talk:Larsona will not cause the orange banner. The only way to know whether anything on your watchlist (except User talk:Larsona which may be on your watchlist) has been edited is to click My watchlist. Note: Some editors may choose to post a message to your talk page when they edit a page of interest to you so in that case you may learn about the edit via the orange banner. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys!

I'm working with an orphanage in Kenya. I want to provide them with android tablets loaded up with educational apps. I also want to provide them with Wikipedia as I think it's the most powerful education tool in existence. How would I go about this for locations without internet connections?

What hard drive size would be required?

Your help is appreciated,

Hiram — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.125.10 (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the specs of android tablets but see Wikipedia:Database download for some download options. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Western Province United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The club is owned by the Western Cape Sport School. The official web site is the Western Cape Sport School web site. Colin Gie is not the owner Ndlovu is not the Chairman.

The official web site is that of Cape United , a different team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.66.138.10 (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can be bold and make the changes yourself as this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, or you can open a discussion on the talk page of the article. GB fan 15:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important book in Computer Science, but I don't understand why it has an separate article for each edition. Is there a wikipedia rule I should know? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architectual (talk • contribs) 15:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Dragon Book" is an unoffical name. Principles of Compiler Design and Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools are considered different books although there may be some overlap. The article Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools covers both editions of that book. Note that one of the links at Dragon Book goes to the section Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools#Second edition. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The second and third entry on the disambiguation page Dragon Book actually link to the same article, with the second link leading to a specific section. I think that is okay, as a reader might look for one of the specific editions and in this way is led directly to the relevant information. Principles of Compiler Design is a different article and thus it is appropriate to have a separate link for it. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are having a page moving poll and we would like to make sure editors from past polls and debates are informed that another is taking place. Is there an easy way to do this or do I have to go to each and every talk page and paste the same message over and over? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-and-pasting works, but if there are many users you want to post to, MessageDeliveryBot (talk · contribs) does exactly what it's name says. If your message meets the requirements at User:MessageDeliveryBot/Rules, request a delivery here. Goodvac (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... it looks like just the thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that on the Beauty and the Beast wikipedia page, it (correctly) states that I was a replacement on the National Tour (Susan Owen).. But I am not the "American Soprano"Susan Owen that is cited when you click on the name. I don't have a wiki page and solely do musical theatre. Hopefully this can be corrected.

Thanks!

susan owen <blanked> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.17.13 (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see the name Susan Owen anywhere on the Beauty and the Beast page. Presumably it was a page whose title was a variant on that; there are quite a few listed at Beauty and the Beast (disambiguation) - was it one of those? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant mention is in Beauty and the Beast (musical)#National tours. I've removed the mistargeted linking of the name there. Deor (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the "List of NCAA college football rivalry games" page, there used to be tabs that allowed you to view teams in alphabetical order, but they are gone now. They are very needed for this page. How can they be restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.39.180.2 (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, the table headers were misformatted in the {{Start trophy game list}} template. I have fixed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the proper place for this, but you really need a way for users to easily convert velocity measurements e.g.: meters per second to feet per minute. Those seem to be the most commonly used measurements for certain things on either side of the pond. Or kmph to mph, etc. I'm sure acceleration conversions would be useful also. I checked your pages "Help:Table", "Help:Wikitable" and "Advanced Convert coding", I found nothing there to help with that.

I was editing the table on the page "Chainsaw safety clothing", because in North America, chainsaw speeds are not given in mph (although that may be interesting and somewhat informative). Here they (and the standards regarding chainsaw safety) are expressed in fps. [I added the fps values.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.184.187 (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try the {{convert}} template; for example, {{convert|100|m/s|ft/min}} gives 100 metres per second (20,000 ft/min); {{convert|100|km/h|mph}} gives 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph). Add |abbr=on to abbreviate: {{convert|100|m/s|ft/min|abbr=on}} gives 100 m/s (20,000 ft/min). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A family member of mine is a person of historical significance (Macushla M. McCormick- as an ensign in the U.S. Navy, she was one of the first ten women to ever serve aboard a U.S. Navy ship, and the second woman to ever receive Surface Warfare Officer certification), and I know a considerable amount about her career from talking to her about her experiences. There are newspaper articles that mention her that can be found on the internet, and she is referenced in passing in at least one book. Would I need to find outside sources to list information about her career in order to write a page on her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snickelfritzster (talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We can't just take your word for it. You should provide reliable sources if you write the article. Though, it's advised that you not do that. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for more on this. Dismas|^(talk) 20:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went and reread the rules on notability (thank you, by the way, for the link), and I noticed it said that if the individual is notable only for a particular event (as would be the case with my relative), it's preferred they be referenced in the article about the event rather than by themselves. Would it be acceptable, then, to add a section to the article on the USS Dixon (the ship in question) stating that two female officers (Ensigns Roberta McIntyre and Macushla McCormick) served on it as two of the first females to serve on a U.S. Navy ship (a fact that I can verify by outside sources)? It seems like a significant detail in the ship's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snickelfritzster (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this would be a proper addition to the ship page, but be sure to use reliable sources. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am having a problem with understanding the rules regarding lists and disambiguation pages in association with surname related pages and lists. Do Disambig rules overrule all list rules? I have followed the advise of other editors and now one associated list created from that surname page is pending deletion.

Please see the discussion at Talk:Carpenter (surname) page. Because the page was getting so big, two primary lists were split off of real and fictional people. While I was on a wiki break the List of fictional characters with surname Carpenter was deleted without discussion. Later I requested the person to restore it. After restoration the list page was then immediately cited as an article for deletion.

Are all fictional characters referencing a surname and cited in Wikipedia off limits to such lists? Or is it a case where an editor or two that makes the associated surname too large when things get deleted? See discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters with surname Carpenter

It would really be nice is the rules for surname pages and their associate lists be made clear.

I am confused and feel that I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. The new DYK system you've got is nice but it seems over-engineered. Can anyone else please fix Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_October_16? I can't. I tried to pass the article for the history of the birth control movement and my attempt backfired. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. In the future please follow the instructions at T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook. Also, requests like these will be answered more quickly if you make them at Wikipedia talk:Did you know (the DYK project), rather than here; people watching this page are not necessarily familiar with DYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example: Dorothy-Perkins-announces.

My question is: How is it possible to see, next to the site external link, the Adobe PDF icon instead of the normal arrow? What does it determine the display of this icon?

I think it's a particularly template, but, I think I am wrong.

Thank you very much --Raoli (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, the URL ends with the four characters .pdf - it happens for totally made-up web pages like http://www.chvjhbcjhcbjfbfjbfjbvnjbkd.pdf --Redrose64 (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok. But how? (excuse me if insist on) --Raoli (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a built-in feature of the MediaWiki software which converts the wikicode into a valid page on the Internet. When an external link is processed, it looks at the first few characters and the last few characters to determine which icon should be shown after the link. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"MediaWiki:Common.css adds an icon to all external links ending in .pdf." See this discussion. Goodvac (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. You guys are great. thanks --Raoli (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this keeps coming up, I created Help:External link icons. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have had a great idea. Thank you for information. Raoli (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator RHaworth helped by starting marking up the reference list and I went through and did what he did to the rest but the references for the article Thorne Webb Dreyer <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wmhanks/Thorne_Webb_Dreyer> do not display as intended. The reference numbers are to appear in the body of the article and be listed in full with some formatting (Italics) at the end. I have read the pages that the error message refers me to but there seems to be different forms for different kinds of lists and different kinds of browsers. None of the examples look like the mark up he was using. Could someone just refer me to an example of the kind of reference list that would be most appropriate for this article? I can then just duplicate the form and syntax for my reference list and hopefully it will display as intended. Thanks wmhanks (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any major issues. There is a reference named R15 defined twice. The citations are manually formatted; the titles are using a mix of title case and sentence case. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the remaining occurrences of [NN] with <ref name="RNN"/>, but this has not fixed all the errors. References R7 and R22 are still not used anywhere in the text; there was a [28] in the text but no definition of reference R28; and there are two definitions for R15. You will have to check back with the sources to work out how to fix these. The exact formatting of each reference is not that important, I think, since you have clearly indicated the titles, authors, dates and page numbers of the works you are citing. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Thank you wmhanks (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very prominent American painter named Lari Pittman who does not have a Wikipedia biography article. I am not qualified to start such an article, and owing to a medical condition that makes it difficult for me to concentrate, I am not able to understand the instructions for suggesting an article. For the same reason, I am not able to provide references about Lari Pittman. He is widely known and exhibited, profiled on PBS, etc, etc. I would like to use this help question to ask that someone look into doing this, as I am not able to follow up on it, and will not be able to follow any suggestions that anyone might make about going through any Wikipedia processes. Thank you. Stenik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stenik (talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Lari Pittman is very prominent, someone will write about him on Wikipedia eventually. Already a number of Wikipedia articles mention him. Most of the other artists featured in the PBS series Art21 have their own biographical articles here; sooner or later the rest probably will too. A better place to request an article would be on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts or Wikipedia:Requested articles. --Teratornis (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could someone kindly upload the image of the "Ice Church" from this article? I would highly appreciate it. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the existing articles Ice hotel and Icehotel (Jukkasjärvi), and the Wikimedia Commons Commons:Category:Ice hotels in Sweden. If that is not enough images, try searching for more free images with {{Flickr free}}, e.g.: Search Flickr for images with the keywords: Icehotel (Jukkasjärvi) under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa, which you can upload to Commons with several methods (see Commons:COM:EIC#Flickr). --Teratornis (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Teratornis, I am assuming that the image from "The Telegraph" cannot be uploaded due to copyright issues. Am I correct? Thanks for your reply. I highly appreciate it. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything on that page, or the Telegraph website in general, which explicitly states the conditions under which that image, or images in general, may be reused? If not, we go by what it states at the very bottom of that page: "© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2011". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Redrose64, thanks for the information. I hope you have a pleasant evening. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please change the "ICIMS" wiki to have a lowercase "i" for the title of the page, this is the correct way to spell it. It should read "iCIMS" on the top of the page. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICIMS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.152.65 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has fixed this in [3]. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent a considerable time converting the above 'laundry list' into a {wikitable sortable}, which seems a neater and more easily read option. However, we are now left with a page with text aligned down the left hand side. Could some technical buff 'realign' the article, so that there are columns created to fill the whole page. Sorry, I have not explained myself very well, which perhaps indicates the level of my helplessness. Thank you,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the current layout? Wikipedia has lots of list articles that have tall narrow tables. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists for guidelines. You could peruse Wikipedia:Featured lists for examples of lists considered to be the best on Wikipedia. Maybe there is some better style you can emulate. --Teratornis (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most difficult website I have encoutered. I just need to know how or who do i need to contact to report FRAUD in the federal gov't. I can be reached by this email address or my home phone...[removed to protect privacy]. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.195.81 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.7 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.

If your goal is to write a Wikipedia article about a case of alleged fraud in a government then it would be inappropriate in most cases. It would at the very least require that published verifiable reliable sources had already written about it, and the article only neutrally stated what they had said without adding original research. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]