User talk:IceDragon64
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, IceDragon64, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Rydra Wong 23:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Help needed
Sorry, folks I screwed up the Millennium Green page. The facts are all correct enough, but it all went into an ugly text box thing. I thought I had the hang of it- obviously not! Ice
- I rolled back your edit to Millennium Green. Your edits are appearing in ugly boxes because of the spaces you're adding at the beginning. I'll move this to your talk page now. --Húsönd 20:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Husond I know not to indent my writing, which put things into stupid boxes! I have now created my first page- wait for it to be messed up!
[edit] Singular or plural and article renaming...
Greetings, IceDragon64. I replied to your query on my talk page. I don't claim to have all the (or even many) of the answers but if I can be of further assistance please don't hesitate to ask. -- Rydra Wong 02:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Moved "Doorstep greens" to "Doorstep Greens"
Hi IceDragon64, I moved (renamed) the Doorstep Greens article. This revitalizes a variety of links including the one in the Millennium Green article. -- Rydra Wong 06:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rheumatic Fever
Someone has made a mess in rheumatic fever 3. Minor Criteria. I am not quite sure what has gone on here; can someone put it right? I don't want to make it worse! {{helpme}}
- It looks like someone hit a few toolbar buttons and saved it. I've cleaned it up. --Sopoforic 22:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- And, incidentally: don't worry too much about making mistakes. In the worst case, we'd just have to undo your changes, so be bold in editing! --Sopoforic 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Refrerences
Hi IceDragon:
I want to tell which the article need of a "cleanup", the article need to be like anothers articles, following the "manual of style"; If you have time to read, you will undestand what I'm telling; is olny this, OK? ;) --Brunoy Anastasiya Seryozhenko (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted article
Dear Stifle,
I don't understand quite why my article on Richard Scarry's book Best Word Book Ever was deleted. I looked up the thing about Blatant Advertising and I don't see quite why this applies to my article. I am nothing to do with Richard Scarry or his publishers and neither are the two sources I quoted as reference. I am fairly new here and I am sorry if it isn't quite right, but I am disappointed that the article was deleted without any attempt to explain or put it right.
It had a No Reference tag put on it by someone, although it did have to references when I posted it. When I queried it with him he said it only needed a clean up, nothing else. OK I can try and 'clean it up'- when I figure out what that means
Richard Scarry has a page on Wiki and this is his most important book- the one which got him started on 300 million sales and is still in print after 45 years. It has quite a lot said about it - including about the PC changes which have been made to it- on the internet, so I thought it should have a page of its own.
Please can you help me to create a more suitable article
IceDragon64 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am not the best person for creating articles, but if you do create that article again you should try to write it from a neutral point of view. For one thing, sentences like "Scarry's fun style that has carried on through 300 books has made it popular and remembered through the generations" and headings like "Updating the Best" don't conform to that. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Best Word Book Ever
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Best Word Book Ever, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Best Word Book Ever? References
Dear Stiffle,
I have followed your kind advice and recreated the page with a more neutral point of view. I understand now that speedy deletion makes authors learn to do things properly. I have put more info in and more references. However, someone put in a Speedy Deletion just because it was deleted before and a note has been left on my page about Citing it and not having good enough references. I have defended it as best I can, but I don't understand what they are saying and its all getting a bit too much for me. I am not very computer literate, I am 43 years old and I don't understand it all. I am trying hard to write a page about a book and I feel like giving up now. I've spent hours going round in circles, such as trying to figure out how to use the Book infobox- nowhere does it tell me how to put info into it. I know you said you weren';t the best person to turn to, but I don't know anyone else and I am affraid that person is just going to delete it all over again.
Thank you for your attention
IceDragon64 (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- You need to include citations from reliable sources that prove that your book is notable and to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Invisible Text?
I have been asked to provide references for my page Best Word Book Ever or it will be deleted. I have been struggling for hours to get it right tonight. I get it so far, then when I try and Show Preview or Save Page I can only see half the text on the page. Assuming I had done it wrong somehow I undid the work and started again, but its half invisible again. You can see all the References, and Links in the Editing Box, but not on the page to view :(
- Hi! I've fixed it. The problem was that you hadn't closed one of the <ref> tags - I've closed it for you now, and half the article has appeared. Have Fun, Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your recent edits
You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window.
[edit] Re: WikiDragons
My to-do list is just a list of articles that I need to sweep for GA Sweeps. :) Corvus coronoides talk 17:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Green Flag
Thanks for the extra bits, the referencing of an email is classed as non-verifiable so can't be used... often wish it could, would save me a lot of trouble as well. I'll do some digging and find where they have hidden the criteria then reference it. The linking of the pennant and the flag is actually a simple process of a re-direct. I will do that next couple of days and let you know, then you can see how it's done for your future reference. Regards Phil aka Geotek (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have made a redirect page for Green Pennant award, if you enter Green Pennant in the search box, it will take you to Green Flag award. Look at the top and you will see the redirect... click on it to take you to the redirect page and you can then see how the redirect is applied. Regards Phil aka Geotek (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
