Hi, can you please explain why I've created this page called The Rolleston Committee to reference from another page but I can't seem to find it (The Rolleston Committee page that is).
If that makes any sense?
Is it something to due the catpitalisation? The article is actually titled the Rolleston committee, but I can't see a way to change it to Rolleston Committee, surely searches arn't case sensitive anyway?
The problem was that you left the 't' out of Rolleston in the title. I've moved your article to Rolleston Committee now. (The way I found it for you was to go to your user page, and then click "User contributions" - you can always click "my contributions" at the top of the screen to see what you've done.) LadyofShalott19:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Help!, I've made a terrible mistake, I think, I had thought stuff in my user page was hidden, but it appears to be publicly visible from outside Wikipedia. Can you please hide it for me, or show me how to hide it somehwere, so I can work on it ib private, thanks2829VC (talk)
Actually, your first assessment was correct. There is no such thing as a completely hidden page on Wikipedia. Now, there may be no links to a given page, but anyone can find any page and both look at and edit it. Most folks don't go looking for things in people's sandboxes, and don't do anything to them if they find them, but they can. (Things in people's sandboxes are not indexed by, e.g., Google - so you you are working on an article on Foo in your sandbox and someone searches Google for Foo, they will not find your draft.) LadyofShalott05:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, relief! I read read it almost immediately you posted it. Not findable externally, I still don't quite understand, your userpage:LadyofShalott (great name, my favorite picture BTW)is easily visible to me, maybe because you are an administrator, but my previous incarnation's userpage is not2829VC (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. Re Cure. Can you advise me please etc. Some of the people involved may still be alive, I can refer to a copy of the original document where the names are replaced by a, b, c etc. In my 'stub' on Cure, I can then refer to a, b and c. Is this suitable? I can give you a link to the original documrnt if you would like to see it, but not here. Thank you for any help. I really don't want to publish the Cure 'stub' and have it immediately removed2829VC08:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Regards, I did email you back immediately, but no reply so far, I guess you're very busy or what I want to do is hopelessly impossible :-)2829VC07:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--I knew you'd follow up by proofreading the sloppy drivel I wrote. Hey, in regards to this--I thought the MoS told us not to wikilink in quotations? Drmies (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great find. As for the MOS, really? I'll have to go look for that rule - if you are correct, it's one that has slipped by me until now. (Have you read that NYTimes article? It says something about Wikipedia culture not liking rules!?) LadyofShalott03:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that article is spot-on. Look at me, working on these French lesbian writers, who are woefully underrepresented, when there's a million bytes per Pokemon character or videogame. Have you ever looked at Category:Monster trucks? Drmies (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, tell your wife, but does she argue with you about WP rules? ;-) Wikipedia:MOS#Linking is what you seek. I actually burst out laughing when I read your question - no, I had never even considered looking at that category before, but I see now that there are 42 articles in just that top category, let alone its subcats. I wish I had a good explanation for the disparity here, but I don't. I posted a link to that article on a popular social networking site, and some of my friends there are suggesting that it's that women are too busy with other things - but as there are many women spending lots of time on that very site, clearly choices are being made about how to spend time online - choices that don't seem to include Wikipedia as frequently as certain other sites. LadyofShalott04:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just need to convince her that I'm not always wrong just because I don't have a ponka, haha. Yes, monster trucks--I looked at a whole bunch of those articles early on in my career. It was something to do. Listen, I think we have a division of labor here (at least in this house!): I got WP, she got Facebook. We can't delete either one of them (imagine that AfD discussion). So, can we merge the two? and get along in glorious harmony? Drmies (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason they can't get along. You may have guessed that the "popular social networking site" to which I referred is Facebook. A merger though? I guess that would pretty much invalidate the A7 speedy deletion criterion... just for starters. LadyofShalott04:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put a notice to please vote at a Wikiproject to which the article belonged. I was told that this is the appropriate place to request votes, though I was told to be neutral and should not express a POV as to how to vote. Did I make a mistake? PPdd (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is reasonable to post a link to the WikiProject; it is also good form to post a note at the discussion saying that you did so. (There might be an expectation that members of the project would tend vote in a block (true or not), and it's good to be completely open about how a discussion has been publicised.) LadyofShalott02:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to use talkback on my page when you are replying here - I get notified if you post here. It's just a courtesy you can use if you reoly on your page and are not sure if the other person is watching it. :) LadyofShalott02:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi Lady of Shalott! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I think it's fine. I can't name the policy right off, but I've seen other articles split before. If you want, I'll try to hunt down the exact policy that says it's ok. LadyofShalott02:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hi. thanks for your help. I`m so sorry that Leithold haven`t article in wikipedia. I think he is so famous in calculus and we must write a good biography for thanksgiving his efforts. --Behtis (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour, all it needs is a couple more citations and it could pass DYK. No need to reply, perhaps should discuss on its talk page. Merci. W Nowicki (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
who are you to delete my talk page contribution to Jodie Foster.
That's OK -- the Wikicode bullted list structure ("*", "**" etc.) is OK for strictly structured and formatted data, or for simple one-level lists of "oppose" and "support" comments, but due to certain limitations it's not really suitable for a general threaded (indented) discussion. For this reason I try to get rid of the "*"s when an indented discussion develops, but this can give rise to disaligned displays in some browsers... AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Puppetry?
I recently noticed you marked me as a sockpuppet. Pretty darn hilarious since I have never used wikipedia since I created this account. Go ahead and assume what you want. Hope you have a fine night. SteveoJ (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding edits to EVHS, I am a former grauate of the high school. It is why I edit on the page. I graduated in 1984. Just thought I would let you know that. I'm no sock, I actually have a life. SteveoJ (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
