Help desk
< November 20	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 22 >

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.

November 21

Bone conduction hearing aid fitting procedure

What the bone conduction hearing aid fitting procedure? (audiologist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.116.214.94 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure exactly what your question is. This is the help desk for the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia. This help desk is for questions about using of, editing of, questions about and problems with Wikipedia itself. We have an article called Bone anchored hearing aid, which might be of some help. Note however, that we do not offer medical advice (see our medical disclaimer) and Wikipedia articles are not a substitute for consultation of a medical specialist in case of specific medical questions. You can ask knowledge questions not asking for medical advice at the Science reference desk. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple citations: same book, different page numbers

Creating multiple citations from the same reference is easy, thanks to the Cite Templates and the Named References function. What I haven't been able to figure out is how to create multiple citations from a single book (or even a website) that distinguish individual pages. E.g.: I cite a particular book and make a ref tag for that book. Then I cite the book again and want to name specific pages, but in order to do this I need to create an entirely new reference—it cannot be an addition citation from a previously named reference. Is there a way to cite a named reference with the variable of distinguishing a page number (or page URL in the case of web refs?) Morganfitzp (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you use a named reference, all the places which use it will point to the samed reference, so it won't distinguish the page numbers. In your situation you may find it appropriate to use Template:Harvard citation documentation. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although it probably would not be best to use it here, if you have a large number of citations all to the same publication at different pages, you might consider using {{rp|blank}} right after each use of the same citation. This will place the page number in the text next to the footnote in the example form:^[1]:16-17.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! These bits of info are a big help! Morganfitzp (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazzi symbols...

... at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_skiing_at_the_1936_Winter_Olympics#mw-articlefeedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.82.81 (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germany was Nazi in 1936 and its flag was the Nazi one. All the uses of Nazi insignia I see on that article are correct because the context is that nation in that time. Am I misunderstanding the issue? DMacks (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are also Nazi symbols in the article Nazi Germany! Shock! Horror! Will someone please think of the children? 194.100.223.164 (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying there are numbers in the article Number, or images of Barack Obama at Barack Obama. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was kind of the point. 91.148.82.81 seems to think Nazi symbols can never appear anywhere, ever. It's OK to use them in articles about Nazi Germany, which Germany was at the time of the 1936 Winter Olympics. The Nazis did some very horrible crimes, but pretending Nazi Germany never existed isn't going to help. 194.100.223.164 (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Created new article need little help

I created a List of Plasma (physics) articles right now. It has no link i don't know how to get one maybe it needs to be approved. I made it up and down like index of wave articles . But it just keeps on going down how do i make it more even pot Like right next to article A index. Should i rename it and add plasma applications or technology with it. Side by side is harder to read so im making it up and down but if someone changes it do i still get credtit for what i added so far. i still have a whole list to add to it probably about 500 at least more plasma articles. Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should i delete the new name article goes here and delete contents reference and external links.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks it worked should i leave it as its name or add applications or technology to it. When would it get approved.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does all the format words have to go in order example Plasma window and than Plasma-immersion ion implantation goes after the - symbol does it have to go after regular word or can i put it in between the order words like before plasma window. And how about words that are together like waveform monitor can it go after wave farm or does the word have to be apart to be there.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied the article a little. The {{WikiProject Physics}} banner on the talk page should attract the attention of relevant experts. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks This guy wants to delete the List of Plasma (physics) articles maybe because he thinks it is similar to category plasma physics but it is not. Plasma category physics does not show up on the search tool box plus sometimes theres a limit to the amount of articles You can put in the category. And it doesnt't have all of the plasma application technology and equations topics like list of plasma physics articles. Check out the discussion if u want and see what u think. Maybe i should delete the plasma capitalization of the P and make it a lower case p. Is that why is cant be viewed on the search tool engine. Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also posted this on my talk page, and I have tried to reply there. It's not a good idea to have the same discussion in several places; now that the article exists I suggest that you make your points at Talk:List of Plasma (physics) articles. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Employment question

dear sir I am Ajay Sharma Employee Id 11434. Sir I want to know the establishment no of SKS Microfinance Ltd and my PF A/c number.Because I was resined 25 May,2011. I submit Pf settelment form 05.10.2011. But no any response of that matter. I check my a/c daily. but PF settelment amount is not credited in my account. My a/c number is <redacted>.

Sir I am in truble, please do anything and clear my PF settlement amount immediatly. I am oblige of that kindness.

thanking you,

yours faithfully

Ajay Sharma

<details redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.45.6 (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will not get a reply to that sort of question here. This help page is for questions about using and editing Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. If you have questions for a particular company you will need to contact them directly. I have removed personal details from your message; you will see at the top of this page that it says "For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details". - David Biddulph (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

office 7 question

hi i m using windows 7 home edition operating system.i also installed the windows office 7 on my machine.i have an account in yahoo.so i configure the account in Microsoft outlook.so my incoming mail are working properly.but i cant send mail to anyone.so please tell me solution for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.238.145 (talk) 09:02, 21 November 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.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 09:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically the Computing Reference Desk. Alansplodge (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingual support

I was reading an article, and some of the Chinese and Indic text came up as boxes. I clicked the link for rendering support, which led to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Multilingual_support_(East_Asian)

Under the heading 'Check for existing support', however, I could see all of the characters properly. I returned to the article and refreshed it, but I still couldn't see them. What's the problem? The help page suggests I have support for East Asian characters, but I can't see them in the actual article...

--188.29.32.15 (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Can you post the name or URL of the article that you were reading? Your operating system, browser name and version would probably help too. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah sure. I'm Windows XP Media Center Edition 2002, and my browser's Chrome 15.0

I was reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama --188.28.225.216 (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see Tibetan at Help:Multilingual support (Indic)#Check for existing support? If that also works then please specify where in Dalai Lama you see boxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, don't see Tibetan. I have 'complex script and left to right languages' selected under the Languages tab in Control Panel,

and I used to be able to see Tibetan fine, I accessed the same article a few weeks back. --188.28.225.216 (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you could see it earlier with the same operating system and browser on the same computer, and you haven't changed settings since, then I don't know what the problem could be. You could try to clear your entire cache in Chrome but I doubt it helps. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why I will not donate to your site

Dear Wikipedia,

Your site refers to my learning institution, Oxford Graduate School, as a degree mill. I have been working very hard to attain my degree from this institution. In fact, I am still working on my degree. If this school were a degree mill, I would have already gotten it.

Oxford Graduate School is also internationally accredited. Perhaps before you pass judgement on a school, you should investigate whether the accusations are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.15.84 (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say this. Are you referring to the discussion on the talk page? That dates from 2006-2008, and ends with a statement that the school "received full accreditation by TRACS on November 4, 2008". -- John of Reading (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the downsides of a free encyclopaedia that anybody can edit is that people sometimes insert wrong information - sometimes deliberately (we call that vandalism), and sometimes in good faith. One of the upsides is that if you find some wrong information in Wikipedia, then as long as that information is not supported by a reliable source, you are encouraged to be bold and remove it. (Make sure you write a sensible edit summary if you do, so that people and robots won't mistake your deletion for vandalism.) --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, that's good advice in most cases, but in this instance the wrong information is in an old discussion on the talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted Deletions

Why are my submissions, which are original works, being targeted for deletion? They include "Brain Drain versus Brain Circulation," "Bangura's Vulture Paradigm," and "Dialogic Theories." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akbangura (talk • contribs) 14:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they are based on original research, this is not permitted in wikipedia, see WP:OR. Brain Drain versus Brain Circulation was deleted as a copyright violation (details given in the delete log); there is a message on your talk page to say that if you own the copyright and wish to donate it to Wikipedia you need to read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. For the other two articles the prod notices at the top of the article explain the reason for the proposed deletion. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't permit original works - that is why your articles are being deleted. If you want to post original works to the web, I would suggest getting a blog. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to find out when you post updates?

A student of mine recently turned in a paper on the Harlem Renaissance, and he plagiarized a paper written for me by another student who took the same class a year and a half ago. In the original paper, the first student consulted Wikipedia on the topic, and included, in his Work Cited page, the fact that your site for that topic had last been updated on February 5, 2010. The second student copied the same information and duplicated that update information. Your site now reveals that "Harlem Renaissance" was last updated November 16, 2011. Is there any way to find out if there was an update of that particular information between 2/5/2010 and 11/16/2011? This would help me verify the plagiarism charge. Smitty456 (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See Help:Page history. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... or more specifically this difference. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict with David Biddulph) More particularly, this is how it looked on Feb 5, 2010, and this is how it looks today. The last edit as of today's date was on November 16, 2011. There were 931 changes between the two versions of the article. I don't immediately see why someone looking at Wikipedia for a paper would deliberately choose to base it on a version of an article that was 21 months old, even if they knew how to go back that far in the article's history to start with... To see the details of the editing history of any article, please click the "history" tab at the top of the article. Hope this helps. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Higginson Cabot (1925-2011)

Frank Cabot died on Friday, 11/18/11, in La Malbaie, QC. This information went out to fiends of the family, by email, from his widow. His page cannot be edited while he is still "living." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipersdad4 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated his article, though the source I found said he died on the 19th. Not sure what you mean about not being able to edit the page while he is living. Gobonobo ^T ^C 19:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I really that confused and that much missing the point?

This is a help desk for people wanting help in using Wikipedia, not a venue to discuss the merits of arguments used in an AFD or the status of WP:NBOOK. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the fact that Herta Muller has received a Nobel Prize in literature justifies having unsourced one line stubs about every work she has written and ignoring notability criteria fine. By the same logic I could also start 10 articles about each of Albert Einsteins 10 fingers. But whatever, I don't care anymore. I will just let the discussions run out and focus on more productive things here on Wikipedia.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barfüßiger Februar (2nd nomination). I don't get it. Can someone explain? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you don't understand? The case for deletion, or the reasons to keep the article? Morganfitzp (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am the nominator in this discussion. Is there a notability establishing fact that somehow I am missing? Is Herta Müller so historically significant that all the books satisfy WP:NBOOK Criterion 5? If that's the case, then I obviously missed that. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish Academy seemed to think that she and her work were significant. If a Nobel Prize for Literature doesn't satisfy WP:NBOOK Criterion 5, I wonder what does? - David Biddulph (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying this justifies having an unsourced one line stub such as Der fremde Blick oder das Leben ist ein Furz in der Laterne? Because if that's the case I must have a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the concept of notability. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does look as if you have a misunderstanding. Are you saying that you don't agree with WP:NBOOK Criterion 5, or that (for some reason) you don't think that it is satisfied for these works? In your AFD you say "I acknowledge that Herta Müller is a praised novelist. However I do not see that she satisfies WP:NBOOK criterion 5." The view of those responding to the AFD is that a Nobel Prize for Literature satisfies the significance requirements of WP:NBOOK Criterion 5; if you do not believe that a Nobel Prize for Literature is enough to satisfy that requirement, perhaps you could explain what achievement by the author would be enough to satisfy criterion 5 in your eyes? - David Biddulph (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBOOK Criterion 5 says:

"The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes."

I am not aware this is the case with Herta Müller. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what what information do these articles provide that is not already present or could be included in Herta Müller#Works? I just cannot see it. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are. Notability is distinctly not about sources being present in the article but about sources existing for the topic. Thus, when we look at notability at AfD, we do not look to what the article says, but what the topic is. What can be confusing is that the speedy criteria (and CSD A7 in particular because it is often conflated with notability because it addresses a related underlying concern), are the opposite on this--the CSD look to a threshold of content in an article while AfD is for addressing the merits of the topic. Because what exists for the topic is what matters on the merits, the main thrust of WP:BEFORE is to look for sources outside of the article before nominating an article at AfD on verifiability and notability grounds. So when you focus, for instance, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barfüßiger Februar (2nd nomination), on the content in the article you are indeed entirely missing the point. With that in mind, this Google Books search shows that your nomination had no merit on notability grounds. I'm also unsure seeing what you've said that you understand the gravity of her having won the Nobel Prize for literature. To analogize it to sports, it's like winning the Superbowl, the World Series, the world heavyweight championship of the world and the World Cup all on the same day except instead of teams it's all one person. There is one prize given per year. Recipients include Faulkner, Camus, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Sartre, Bertrand Russell... Your analogy to Albert Einstein's fingers is inapt. An apt analogy would be to all of his many scientific papers. Anyway, I drafted WP:BK but no longer believe in any of the subject specific notability guidelines. Topics either have sources written about them or they don't; in this case you nominated a a topic that has plenty.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN is policy. The burden to show that each of these books has plenty of written sources about them is on the editors who want to include these articles in the encyclopedia. Furthermore, my argument that these articles are just forks of the information in the Herta Muller article is valid. We do not fork content from one article out into separate one line stubs just to have an article about each subject. And I disagree that your Google Books search establishes these books notability. Wikipedia articles require sources discussing the subject, not websites merely selling the subject. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WPBURDEN is utterly irrelevant. It is about information in articles. It has nothing to do with any burden of showing notability. Content forking is also irrelevant. Forking is taking the same information content and spreading it into different articles. It has nothing to do with creating stubs for different articles on each book that written by a single author and thus appears in a list of their works. Is The Raven a content Fork of Edgar Allan Poe? As for the Google Books search again your off base. This is not a web search. Google books shows about 1,400 books discussing the subject, some of those in detail. Google books does not return results showing sales of a subject, it shows other books that mention or discuss a subject. The fact of the matter is that if I spoke German I could expand the content of the stub using sources such as this, this and this from the first page of 1,400 results and I wouldn't have even begun looked at numerous other places for sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italicized titles chopping off J's

On Wikipedia articles that have a title in italics and begin with a "J" (Jumanji, Just Kids), I'm showing that the J is cut off in the article's title, making it look like an I. I wonder if this is a known issue or due to my configuration. I'm using Vector and Firefox. Gobonobo ^T ^C 19:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What encoding do you use in your browser? What font?--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 19:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as well. it seems to be a consequence of the CSS having no "padding-left", and "overflow:hidden", so the kern of the 'J' is beyond the box and so hidden. I'm not sure what should be happening - it may be a rendering bug in Firefox, or it may be an infelicity in the definition of CSS. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Later): I haven't been able to identify anywhere that this issue is discussed, either in the CSS spec, or elsewhere, so I suspect that it's something that neither the CSS guys nor the Firefox guys thought of. It's something that Wikipedia could work round, but it's fiddly, because you would want to add some padding-left to an <h1>, <h2> etc, but only when it starts with a <i>. --ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying link colors?

I'm using Chrome, and the default link colors make visited links really hard to distinguish. (The default visited link color is a very dark purple that is quite close to black, so visited links just look like text.) I've just installed a Chrome extension that allows you to change link colors -- but it makes all unvisited links the same color, breaking the blue link/red link distinction that's so useful in Wikipedia. Does anybody know of a way to do this that would make all unvisited blue links blue, all unvisited red links red, and all visited links another color, in Chrome? Thanks! --Tkynerd (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't offer the solution your request, but should say that I also use Chrome and I've never had problems distinguishing the visited link/purple-y colour from the black text. Is there any way that maybe tweaking the colour calibration of your monitor might help make the distinction more obvious? Regards. Mato (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) You can do this without relying on a browser extension if you create User:Tkynerd/common.css. Search for "standard link colors" in Help:User style, and you'll see there some magic to set whatever link colours you like. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Link color. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, all! I actually can see the standard "visited link" color pretty well on my monitor at home, but on my monitor at work, it's very difficult to distinguish from the black text. (If you look at the standard color in isolation, it looks dark blue/purple, but a few words of that color in a run of black text are really hard to distinguish.) Anyway, I created common.css and it works great. Best regards, --Tkynerd (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do if an unregistered user of Wikipedia keeps making negative and unsubstantiated changes to a wiki page?

Please could someone advise me as to what someone should do if a unregistered user of Wikipedia constantly makes negative changes to a persons wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonclifford38 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert per the BLP, issue a user talk page warning, and report it at the BLP noticeboard. – ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in Thom Calandra profile

Hi. I am Thom Calandra.

There are several errors in my profile.

This is the section that most concerns me:

Thom Calandra is the principal of the Stockhouse.com franchise after purchasing the assets from Marcus New. Whomever is downplaying his involvement is obviously trying to continue a deception against the public interest, on Wiki. Mr. Calanadra is well compensated for his "findings" by the mining companies he touts, including, naturally, travel expenses.

All of that is untrue. I am not a principal of Stockhouse. I am not well compensated for anything.

My email address is ^{[details removed]}

I am a writer and an investor. I am a principal at Torrey Hills Capital (www.torreyhillscapiral.com)

Thank you.

Thom Calandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.235.56 (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that paragraph. As the advice at WP:BURDEN says, any editor can challenge and remove unsourced text. I have also removed the paragraph that you just added, since that has no reliable sources either. A Wikipedia article is only as reliable as its sources.

You are welcome to make further suggestions for the article on its talk/discussion page. The general advice at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) may also be helpful. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you chnage a mis-spelling in a page title

I just created a page about The International Chemical Secretariat. Unfortunately, I titled it "The International Chemical*s* Secretariat". They have politely pointed out that I am a total doofus, but since my account is new I can't seem to do anything about it - can someone please correct that error for me, or show me how it's done? I see someone below has had a similar issue. Would be much appreciated. :) Paulwhaley (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your work on the article! -- LWG ^talk 22:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lost temple

i remember once reading about a lost temple. im not sure but it had some important remains and it was lost in some desert or somwhere. and now i can't remember the name. can you guide me in the right direction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.36.157 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Petra, or Machu Picchu? If not, you could try asking at the reference desk. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or Petra, or Palmyra ("Bride of the desert"), or Ephesus. There's loads of 'em, really; I just thought I'd mention those, in case it helps jog your memory. But, yes, refdesk is a better place to ask. Chzz ► 08:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S'il vous plaît, j'ai essayé d'inclure les références sur mon texte de présentation, comme i m'a été demandé. Mais j'ai toujours un message d'erreur qui s'affiche (ref list) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esthadivine (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour. Merci de ne pas soumettre d'article en français sur la Wikipédia anglophone. Vous pouvez soumettre votre texte sur la Wikipédia francophone. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Greenaway

Hello, we are trying with Peter Greenaway to correct the wikipedia pages about him and add new links, but it has been removed again. Can you advice us please what to do, so we can update the information about Peter. Thank you Saskia Boddeke and Peter Greenaway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Greenaway (talk • contribs) 23:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see item #10 at WP:ELNO. – ukexpat (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, due to the conflict of interest, please refer to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). Chzz ► 08:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 November 21

Contents