Help desk
< July 2	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

July 3

Category:Bruce Springsteen songs

The list is missing the song Darkness On The Edge Of Town from the album by the same name. I tried to edit the list and add the song but was unable to figure out how. Can someone add the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentbrent123 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure how either. I will call someone else up. Thanks, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bentbrent. Categories are not lists. Categories show existing articles that have been placed into them. Since Wikipedia does not have an article on the song Darkness on the Edge of Town (though it does have an articles on the album of the same name), the only way for the song to be added to the category is if the article is created and then that article is added to the category.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 28, 2010, respectfully, it would be better to reply only to questions you know the answer to or have input on. Your post would be quite apt if someone had come to your talk page and asked you for an answer and you didn't know. I think you meant well but, by contrast, I can't see how it's at all helpful to tell people in effect "I don't know but I will ask someone else" when the question is at the general forum help desk where the question is put to the community of editors who monitor it; if one person doesn't know, someone else will surely be along.-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Where exactly can you add tables and templates to your user talk edit page? Rather, when I go to my talk page and click the edit tab, how do I put tables and templates in the area above the edit box? A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:Edit notices help? Incidentally, if you do add an edit notice, don't make it too large - for example, all the notices at the top of your talk page practically fill my screen! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 06:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey they fill mine too, but if you're gonna treat it as an obstruction rather than a community notice then... A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Article Traffic

Is there a way for a user to check article traffic. I wrote my first article yesterday, Battle of the Uxian Defile and I'm damn proud of it, and I want to see what kind of traffic its getting. Any way to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMooreSmith3 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Near the top of the history tab there is a line of "External tools". The rightmost tool shows you the "page view statistics". The article had 32 views yesterday, apparently. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Light Emitting Diodes

I am using 110 volts d.c for 54 Light emitting Diodes in Series, Bleeder resistor across the twelve L.E.D. What is the resistor value wattage to use?

Thanking You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbroywhy (talk • contribs) 06:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Science reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. —teb728 t c 06:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we see if an article is nominated for good article?

When you go to an article that has been nominated to be a GA you don't see a little sign somewhere to say that it is nominated for a good article. Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.98.220 (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When an article has been nominated for GA, you should see a {{GA nominee}} tag on the article talk page, the talk page should appear in Category:Good article nominees. —teb728 t c 07:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. Surely people consult wikipedia for information, not to read the talk pages. Why on earth is the GA nominee label not prominently shown on the actual article page for all to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.98.220 (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is located right below the article's title in small lettering, as an example can be seen at Wadsworth Jarrell where it says:

A C-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Currently a good article nominee. Calmer Waters 09:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calmer Waters, do you use some special code to get that. I see only "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" in that location. I don't see it even in the rendered HTML of the page. —teb728 t c 10:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calmer waters please answer. User:TEB728 asked whether you need a special code to see that message. I looked at Wadsworth Jarrell and that message does not appear anywhere.??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.98.220 (talk)

Logged in users can see this if they enable "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article" under Gadgets at Special:Preferences. The documentation is at User:Pyrospirit/metadata. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Primehunter, just came online and edit conflicted with you. Unfortunately, IPs will not be able to do this, as they do not have access to personal preferences. Had this enabled so long that I started to believe that everyone could see it also, or I would have clarified :) Calmer Waters 21:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, the question is "why?". Why must an IP create an account -- they are all as anonymous as account holders anyway -- to see such a non earth shattering message than an article is nominated for GA. What is so secret about it that IPs are deliberately not able to see this like anyone else? Someone point me to the debate/s that ended in this dopey policy being created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.98.220 (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By and large, neither IPs nor logged-in users can see the information on the article page, and both IPs and logged in users can see the information on the article's talk page. As explained by PrimeHunter, the message Calmer Waters described only appears to users who have enabled a certain gadget that modifies the way Wikipedia pages appear. Anyone who creates an account can enable that gadget. If you don't have an account, you can't enable that gadget. That makes sense, because many IPs are shared, and a choice about the way Wikipedia appears made by one person using a certain IP address shouldn't affect the way Wikipedia appears for other people using that same IP address. In other words, you need an account so that Wikipedia can remember your personal preferences. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHY? Why can't everybody see if an article is GA nominated? Why is there a mechanism that forces casual visitors to somehow enable a gadget to see if an article is GA nominated? Who decided on this policy? Where is is the debate about adoption/rejection of this policy recorded on a talk page somewhere, and where is it comprehensively explained to skilled editors who come here only casually? The WHAT HAPPENS is known, but not the WHY. So why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.98.220 (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down and please do not shout. To answer: because most people, believe it or not, don't care if an article is nominated for GA.

In addition adding a GA nominee notice on the mainspace is misleading. Especially since anyone can nominate any article for Good Article status. I can, for example, nominate a very badly written libelous article for GA. Making a regular reader aware that the article is a GA nominee may make it seem like the article is accurate and neutral and endorsed by Wikipedia editors when it is not.

Users who care about GA nominations however, are expected to already know about talk pages (that includes IP editors). That's why the notice of being a GA nominee is on the talk page, where it reaches the intended audience well enough. From the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "The policies, guidelines, and process pages themselves are not part of the encyclopedia proper."

If you think otherwise, can you explain the benefits of adding a GA nominee notice on the main article page itself? It may also help if you just come out and say which article you want to be seen as a Good Article nominee. Please do not edit while logged out, it does not help us give context to your question.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article classification is an internal system meant to show how much work is still needed to improve an article. GA's and FA's are special in that they can alert readers that the article is well-written, reliable, etc. GA-nominees, however, are not GA yet, and they may not even pass GA. As such, it is of no interest whatsoever to the usual reader. Anyone can nominate any article they want, but that doesn't make them suddenly more authoritative without having passed the muster yet.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 09:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to create an account and has many benefits. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? Choosing to see some things aimed at editors and not readers is just one of them. See Category:Hidden categories for another example of this. By the way, the decision to put an icon on good articles (not nominees) was only made a year ago after long discussions and earlier rejections which had caused it to be listed at Perennial proposals. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JavaScript issue in Google Chrome

Hello, I'm having an issue with JavaScript in Google Chrome on here which I have identified is only on Wikipedia. I was just welcoming a user when I noticed that Twinkle had disappeared. Then I found that every gadget and script that I use had gone off the screen! Any idea why? I'm using Monobook as the skin and I'm running Windows 7. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 07:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try to clear your entire cache in Chrome. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Downloadable sources

Can someone please point me to WP's policy on referencing sources that require downloading. For example, in this article, clicking on the reference link downloads a MS word document. There's no warning that downloading will occur, not to mention that the document itself offers no copyright or editorial infomation. Thank you. Lord Vetinari 11:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your example uses {{Cite web}} which has a format parameter mentioned at Template:Cite web#Optional parameters. See also Wikipedia:External links#Rich media. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abnormal adding of « user’s guides » portions inside an article

When editing (an hour ago) a small amendment in the External links of Etta James, the system both did not accept it and added several useless sections - including a example pix of Socrates (!) - coming from one (or several ?) of the user’s guide, probably the biog’ help… On my computer, all these portions still do appear in the new edited version of the modified article, but the new number of bytes only calculates my amendment.

What happened and how could s’dy repair this (appearance only ?) problem ?

Thanks in advance --Bibliorock (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in [1]. You transcluded the template {{Biography}} instead of making an external link. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup... w/ my apologies ;-) --Bibliorock (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage links

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

– this isn't the correct forum for this problem --Jayron32 15:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having problems at Tristane Banon from a Wikipedia busybody over interlanguage links he has taken exception to. Relevant talk pages threads are Talk:Tristane_Banon#Interlanguage_links and Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case#Interlanguage_links (the latter being where the user first expressed an interest) as well as my own Talk page User_talk:FightingMac#noindex.

His original concern appeared to me that foreign language Wikipedias were not RS but when I pointed out that I wasn't using the links as sources (rather offering the reader a service) he changed his concerns to multiple ones involving reader's expectations. When subsequently I restored one of the links in the format Michèle Sabban (see French Wikipedia article) as suggested at Help:Interlanguage_links#Purpose to deal with his expectation concerns, he immediately reverted without explanation and sent me an edit warring notice.

The user involved appears to be some sort of Wikipedia addict with ambitions (so far unrealised) for arb committee. His general intellectual standard can be judged adequately I think at Banon where amongst other things he dismissed the French best-selling book Sexus Politicus, to which I had provided an interlanguage link to he had deleted, as 'not very notable'.

Any tips or help how to deal with problem appreciated at my Talk page. He suggests an RFC, but I suspect that will only lead to a socking for me. Really I would like to see a concerned administrator step in and take some decisive action over the user (he's been blocked on numerous occasions) who would appear to be a wikipedia addict (12+ hours a day on his own estimate) making a thoroughgoing nuisance of himself at articles he knows (again on his own admission) nothing about at all.

Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The user User Fighting Mac is talking about is me. ( quite rudely talking about me also ) - anyways, the user has multiple threads already discussing this on talkpages and user pages, this is just another one creating a WP:Forum shopping situation. Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Off2riorob. Fancy seeing you here :-) and not being rude at all (nor mentioning you by name because I know you worry about Google searches even if you don't smoogle Google) neither forum shopping

You can obviously draw attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages if you are careful to add links to keep all the ongoing discussions together ...

but simply trying to get some help on an irritating problem (i.e. you, not being rude or anything). Do you have multiple issues with that as well? When I elevate I shall note you followed me to the Help desk. FightingMac (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective, guys. Anyway... this is a content dispute, something the Help Desk doesn't really interfere with. It's better off kept in the talk page of the respective article and inviting other editors for additional outside opinions, if only to keep the discussion unified. A bit of civility (on both sides) helps too. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution instead.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 15:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Obsidian. I've looked at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and left a note on my Talk page agreeing to a RFC. But I see this not so much as content dispute as a user problem, as I suggest above. The essential element of the user concerned's quibble is that interlanguage links are uncommon. I've already given examples of where I use them and if anyone looking in can give other example that would be useful. Bear in mind the user is attacking a Wikipedia facility (interlanguage links) with an agreed policy about their use. It's not just about content. He saying they shouldn't be used. That, for example, I should crreate stubs in the English wikipedia. But the subjects involved aren't notable in English letters and their stubs would be deleted on those grounds. FightingMac (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fort Hood Killer

We are Retired military and live in Texas approximately 1 hour from Fort Hood. We are wondering what is going on with the infamous nadal hasad. We have not heard anything about his status in a long time. Are they ever going to issue JUSTICE to him for wht loss he caused? Also, what happened to the officers above him that would have been asked to retire early if this sort of thing had happened wien i was in the military. Please look into this issue and post an update as soon as possible.

Thank You, Hank Neigel S/Sgt USMC Ret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.12.227 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.6 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.Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits not posting

I did an edit of Mr. Sunshine (2011 TV series). I altered Matthew Perry, who also "stars" in the series to "starred", as the series had been cancelled. My change has been reverted. Why? I'm almost positive I clicked the "Minor Edit" button, for whatever that's worth. For 1972's "The Cowboys" I offered: "It's noteworthy that in the ending, there was no mention of Wil Andersen's wife receiving the proceeds of his final drive. He was determined to not delay the drive to the following year, 1) for not wanting to "owe anybody", 2) but primarily that he didn't want to see his wife "end up somebody else's fry cook" because he hadn't provided for her. In "Unforgiven", the genre had evolved, and there remained concern in the end that Ned Logan's wife received her part of the proceeds of his and Billy's efforts." That was there the same evening but is gone now. What's wrong with that post? Perhaps I just don't "unnerstan" Wiki. It's unclear what degree if any of "editorializing" Wiki is interested in. Fred Blitzfick (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit here was undone with an edit summary containing a link to "WP:TVLEAD". If you follow that link, you'll find the style guidelines for the opening paragraph of articles about TV shows. Apparently the editors most interested in TV shows have agreed that the present tense should be used, even if the show is no longer running. I don't know how to reply to this, but Fred Blitzfick says: "OK."Fred Blitzfick (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was undone with the comment "OR", which is shorthand here for "Original research". Editors here shouldn't add their own ideas and opinions about a subject, but should stick to recording what has been said in reliable sources such as books, newspapers and such like. I don't know how to reply to this, but Fred Blitzfick says: "OK." Fred Blitzfick (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In short, yes, there are a lot of rules at Wikipedia! I've left you some introductory links on your talk page, which will help you to explore. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Among the many rules is: Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki. --Teratornis (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change my user name

Can you remove the User: on my profile display name? if not then how can I create an account that does not show User: BrixMusic?

Brix (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Changing username. --Teratornis (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c):Both are not possible. "User:" is shared by the pages for every single user and it indicates the "namespace, that the page resides in. So your account name is "BrixMusic" and the user page for your account resides in the namespace "User". This will then show at the top of your page as "User:BrixMusic". This is how pages within Wikipedia work, including pages for users and cannot be changed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, this page Brix is inappropriate advertising and not what Wikipedia user pages are for. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to edit protected pages and not become an administrator?

I've been on Wikipedia for over three years, and I'm involved in maintaining several highly used templates like {{Infobox NRHP}} and all its subpages, {{ConvertAbbrev}}, {{NRISref}}, and some others. In their infancy, I was able to edit these templates freely and often, but as they have become more frequently used, administrators have protected them because of the potential damage they could do, especially with things like the job queue. I know that I could just fill out a WP:RfA and try to become an administrator (which I am considering), but seeing as how I don't really care to use the other features that come along with adminship, is it possible for me to just receive protected page editing rights? Kind of like the revert and rollback privileges given to certain users?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed recently in a couple of different spots. There currently isn't any way to do it and the discussions were centered around why it won't happen. So the only way at this point to directy edit th pages is to survive hell week. GB fan (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This proposal comes up from time to time, and (at least reporting on the historical outcome of these discussions as they have played out in the past) it is generally agreed that splitting the "big three" administrator tools (protection/deletion/blocking) are opposed. You, of course, are free to start a new discussion to see if that opinion has changed, but I wouldn't (if I were you) expect the outcome to be any different. As an aside, is it that onerous to ask for an admin to do the edit for you, for example using {{editprotected}} or making a request at WP:RFPP or even befriending an admin who has good knowledge of how template works, and just asking them for help? --Jayron32 19:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I can't ask for an editprotected request; I would just rather be able to do it myself and go on about what I was doing. There are several admins that know the ins and outs of these templates, but they are not always online. I would prefer to just get it done rather than have to wait for them. I'll look into RfA, but I've been purposely avoiding it, largely because of the nomenclature GB fan uses above haha. Thanks for the quick replies!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your RFA is likely to go better than most. I avoid RFA usually, because its usually nothing more than a bunch of Dramaqueens trying to nitpick the shit out of each other. However, in my experience the RFAs that are most likely to pass are those where the person requesting adminship has a specific task in mind, and specific reason for needing the tools. In otherwords, people whose request for adminship amounts to "I have been here a while and think I deserve them" usually fails, while people who say "I spend a lot of time maintaining protected templates, and need the tools to be able to do so" are usually more successful. --Jayron32 19:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm currently looking over the guides, standards, and all that. I may fill one out in the next few days, but the work it will take to dig up info about all my past contributions seems a bit daunting, I confess haha. On top of that, I've had a few harsh interactions with a certain editor that may put a stigma on any RfA I start. Thanks again for the help!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No response to my Talk with WBOSITG or Garden Editor

I posted a question on MY Talk and the Editor named was WBositg now apperently GARDEN. I received no response. Why? How can I get through to you without having to go back and forth without ever finding oput how to change an item? Edmond321 (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if any particular user isn't responding to you, sometimes users miss a question asked on their user talk page, and sometimes users don't log in every day to edit. If you have a specific question about how to do something, this is the correct place to ask it. So, let us know where you are having trouble, and we'll do the best to help you. --Jayron32 19:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to User talk:Fox#Help (WBOSITG is now Fox), you should discuss article content at the article talk page, Talk:Louis XVII of France. Bear in mind, however, that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth by verification by reliable published sources. —teb728 t c 20:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant "not truth but verification by reliable published sources". --ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing name of article

Will an administrator please change the name of the article Maersk to exactly "A.P. Moller - Maersk Group"? --ANCJensen (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should first start a discussion at the article talk page using the procedure described at WP:RM. --Jayron32 20:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should know, however, Wikipedia has a policy to use common names rather than official names. —teb728 t c 20:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were told exactly why this would not happen when you asked the same question on June 22. --ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple more redirects around that page and the name of it's founder to increase the likelihood that people find the page they want. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hot Dog Program

Sir, How do I go about purschasing a video copy of "The Hot Dog Program"?

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.222.32 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 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.--Jayron32 20:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing how the Watchlist works

On the 'Help - Watching pages' page, in the "Controlling which pages are Watched" section, 2nd bullet point, it states: 'Talk pages are not listed at Special: Watchlist/edit or Special: Watchlist/raw but they are automatically watched whenever their corresponding non-talk pages are watched ' (My emphasis). My question is, is there a way to watch an article page only or just a talk page? If this was possible, it would make searching through a long watchlist less of a chore as the watchlist itself would be so much shorter.

RASAM (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is possible check here. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page I linked to seems very confusing. If you cannot figure it out through editing/playing with it I'll take a look and see if I can simplify it for you. There is some useful information on the talk page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the linked-to page and its talk were both rather confusing but I suspect that is more down to my computer/Wikipedia ignorance. For instance, the only 'CSS' I know is 'Confederate States Ship' and I don't think that is what is meant here. Don't think I'm ungrateful because that is not the case; I was extremely impressed at how fast a response appeared and for that I thank you. I'm just trying to give you an inkling as to the size of the problem! I probably will not take this any further now as it is past midnight where I live.

RASAM (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tested it and it works. The easiest way for me to help you here is if you were to give me a list of pages you want hidden. Click this link and create the page with no content. Give me a link to the created page and I can hide them for you. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not not looking to hide anything. I'm asking if there is a way to watch an article page or a talk page. In other words, if the article page is relevant, that page is the one that should be watched; but, if the talkpage and only the talk page is the one that is relevant, just that page is the one that should be watched. There is then no point in having the article page watched.

RASAM (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but when you click to watch the page you watch both the article page and the talk page. Using the script I provided is the only way to watch an article page only or a talk page only. If you would like, you can give me the list of pages you don't want to see and I can set it up so you don't see them. For example if you wanted to watch Wikipedia:Help desk but not Wikipedia talk:Help desk, it must be formatted in your script to hide the talk page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix ref tag

I created the page William Putnam (alpinist) a little while ago using a single source. Thought I understood how to use "ref" tags but the durn thing isn't cooperating.

Could somebody fix it and maybe leave brief explanation of problem on the Putnam talk page?

Thanks. Calamitybrook (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, replying on talk page as requested.Quasi human | Talk 23:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]