User talk:PrimeHunter

Good articles

Hi! Remember when you explained to me what a Good article is? Well, I have gotten interested in the subject and promoted one biology article to good article status (I wasn't involved in editing the article, and also made my decision according to the good article criteria). I have a question for you. How do you nominate an article for good article status? Please reply on my talk page. And as always, thank you for your help. Gug01 (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01

@Gug01: See Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Signatures are not supposed to have text after the time stamp and it's odd to have "Gug 01" at the end when the user page has already been linked on "Gug01". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Gug01 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01

Could you mentor me

Dear sirs,

I heard you were experienced in the technical areas of wikipedia and I want to become an experienced template editor. I was wondering if you could be my mentor.NetworkOP (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@NetworkOP: I'm not in an offical mentor or adopter program but you are welcome to ask me questions. I don't use VisualEditor and have not worked with TemplateData. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of help desk info

As we both have written almost identical information, I have simply removed my own meager duplication :). Thanks for your valuable additions to the help desk, it's great to see new editors getting so detailed and helpful information. GermanJoe (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I need your help

Could you please update this file? It is based on 2012 data. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.27.142.23 (talk)

I moved your post here to the talk page. See Help:Using talk pages. The file name says "Democracy Index 2012" so that file should continue to display 2012 data. I don't have graphics tools to make a new file for a new year. The 2012 file was uploaded by User:FutureTrillionaire. There is no newer version in commons:Category:Democracy Index. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, PrimeHunter. You have new messages at Mr. Yondris Ferguson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mr. Yondris Ferguson (Leave a Comment) 17:10 20 January 2015 (GMT)

Delete a page, please?

Hi! Can you please delete the page User:Gug01/Articles created in enWP/Stubs? It is one of my subpages to my user page, and I do not need it any more. Please delete it. Gug01 (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01

@Gug01: Deleted. Another time you can use {{db-u1}}. Is there a reason your signature ends with "Gug 01" after the time stamp. It's confusing and can make users think something has been accidentally removed so they waste time checking the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why. I think its a glitch in the Preferences. I will have to find a way to change that. Gug01 (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Small note

I don't know how familiar you are with the region of the former Yugoslavia, but relatively large percent of Croatian nationalists identifies themselves as ustashi, that could be equivalent of Serbs being called "chetniks", and many Serbian nationalists say they are chetniks, but chetniks were not nazis... Complicated topic. If you need any more info feel free to contact me on my talk page. Cheers. VS6507 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me with my question about the edit summary/explanation box. Thegreatcatherine (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Technical Barnstar
		Thanks for quickly solving my redirect question. You are great!_ Atmospheric theatre (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Atmospheric theatre (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you Prime Hunter!

Vromano7 (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Category problem

For some reason, when I open the categories for Elateroidea, Polyphaga, Elateridae, and Hemicrepidius, I see the following code in the section that is supposed to be titled "Pages in category": <a name="Pages_in_category" id="Pages_in_category"></a>. What does this mean? Can you fix it? Gug01 (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gug01: The heading is made by MediaWiki:Category header. The page history indicates an issue which was fixed 20 minutes ago, at least for that MediaWiki message. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine!

		Sunshine!
		Hello PrimeHunter! Gug01 (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Gug01 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Example?

You wrote: "Please don't place your edit summaries inside /* ... */. It causes special formatting of the edit summary and is only meant for the section heading in section edits. See Help:Edit summary#Section editing. If you edit a section then leave the prefilled part of the edit summary alone and add your own to the right of /* ... */. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)"

I think I got it, but would you give an example?

Thanks. -Capikiw (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Capikiw: [1] was correct. The grey text "Thanks for your comment. Example?" is the section heading, the little arrow to the left is a link directly to the section (also works from other pages like [2]), and the black text is the part of the edit summary you wrote on your own. Compare to your former edits at Special:Contributions/Capikiw and mine at Special:Contributions/PrimeHunter. Sorry to bother you with such a detail but for users who know the feature it's annoying when other users break it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! I hope you don't mind answering another question: What are the numbers in green and red in parentheses in each user's history of changes? -Capikiw (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Capikiw: It's the number of bytes the page became larger or smaller. See Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Caracal

Hi! There is a copyright issue on the page Caracal, and it might be deleted in a week. I have no idea how to deal with the page. Can you please help? Gug01 (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gug01: I don't work much with copyright. Just try to follow the links in the box if you want to try to save something. The article text in still in the edit window and page history. I haven't compared the text to sources but according to Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Caracal it may be hard to fix. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

MS update

"Microsoft is researching this problem and will post more information in this article when the information becomes available." PrimeHunter (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

— Anything further on this? I'm still getting daily KB 301 3455 updates that I have to uninstall. Sca (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sca: Microsoft still says the same at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3013455. I don't have more info and haven't searched for it. You can avoid the repeated installs and uninstalls. Details may vary but at a time where it's not installed: Manually start Micosoft/Windows update via the Start menu. Search for updates. Locate KB3013455 in the available updates. Right click it and select hide. It's still possible to unhide it later if you want to install it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sca (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sca: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3013455 now has a link to update 3037639 which fixes the problem. I installed it from there and it works fine in my 32-bit Windows Vista. The update wasn't offered in a normal search for Windows updates. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. Sca (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sea Devil

Hi. I uploaded that pic we were talking about the other day on my user page, but I'm not sure how to add it here commons:Category:Sea monsters.Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Giantdevilfish: Edit commons:File:Sea-devil.jpg and add [[Category:Sea monsters]] at the bottom. See more at Help:Category. You can also try to think of other suitable Commons categories, for example by looking at the categories of other images in the same category. You can remove {{Uncategorized|year=2015|month=February|day=22}} when it's categorized. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

moving sofa problem

"The lower-bound sofa is that sofa which can be moved through the hallway with continuous transformations, while the upper bound sofa cannot be moved through the hallway." That's how they define it word for word in a research paper here. Don't just revert it... I don't care how you want to rephrase it, but at least put some definitions on lower bound and upper bound. It's not safe to assume most readers can understand it. The article is currently a stub anyway (plenty of room for improvement, giving more related definition is a good start). 146.151.84.226 (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

better link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.84.226 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not invent anything, and I am not wrong. The source did not specifically say it, but it implies. Just because I understand what it implies doesn't mean most readers can. Again, I'm a math major. I don't think you are based on your unknowledgable talk. You yourself said: "Any size which is known to be possible can be called a lower bound, but if we say "the lower bound" without further context then it will usually be implied to be the best known lower bound, i.e. the largest number which has currently been proven to be possible." That's literally the same idea as my words. It is implied, but for most people who have no good math background would not know what the heck are the lower and upper bound. "Many sofas may at different times or contexts be called lower bounds and upper bounds," quoted by you. Your statement makes me feel like you have no idea what you're talking about. There is only 1 context, which is moving through the L shaped hall-way. And what does time having anything to do here? There is currently only 1 known lower bound and 1 known upper bound. Time will not change facts. If in the future, we happen to find a new lower bound or a new upper bound then those values will replace the old bounds, so there will always be 1 lower bound and 1 upper bound, no matter what. It's true that in general mathematics, lower bound is the highest known value and upper bound is lowest known value. Value can be anything, but in this specific problem, it can be only area.

Anyway, I added "In this case, a lower bound is the largest area that can go through the hallway, whereas the upper bound is the smallest area that cannot go through it." That would essentially clear up your concern. Let me know if you still have any objection. If there is still a debate between us, I think it's best to find a third party to mediate. This third party should have a good reputation in Wikipedia and of course an expert in mathematics. I can look for one.146.151.84.226 (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You have been reverted by professor David Eppstein who is also a Wikipedia administrator. Stop this. I don't care whether you are a math major. You are clearly not qualified to interpret what the source says. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I need Assistance

Hi PrimeHunter, you moved my "user:ndidiokonkwonwuneli" page to "draft:ndidiokonkwonwuneli". I was wondering why you might have done that? Also, I want to publish the page but I am new to wikipedia and I don't know how to do it. Any suggestions? Also, how do I get a knowledge graph box on Google for this page? Thanks in advance :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.253.32.114 (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You were not logged in when you posted this and none of those pages have existed. I guess you refer to the move of User:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli to Draft:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli. I posted a message about the move but as the page history [3] shows, it wasn't me who made the move. The explanation was "Preferred location for AfC submissions". User:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli is a user page and should not be used for article drafts but to tell about the user as a Wikipedia editor, as described at Wikipedia:User pages. Draft:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli was submitted for review but was deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion, and a copyright infringement of http://www.thenextwomen.com/2013/01/24/ndidi-nwuneli-nigerian-serial-entrepreneur-global-leader-tomorrow. This section has also been edited by User:Leapsandbounds who created an article at Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli. A Google Knowledge Graph is made by Google and not Wikipedia. I have no inside knowledge of how they decide to make it or what to put in it. We have received many posts about wrong information and usually reply with the message at Template:HD/GKG. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I am the user user:Leapsandbounds. I did not intend to make the Draft:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli a user page. I wanted to create a separate article. How can I do that? Also, I am a bit confused about the copyright infringement issue. I used that source in the Wikipedia article but proper credit was attributed to http://www.thenextwomen.com/2013/01/24/ndidi-nwuneli-nigerian-serial-entrepreneur-global-leader-tomorrow. — Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "separate" article? Separate from what? You have already created Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli. I wasn't involved in the deletion but maybe I will examine the copyright claim later. I only made this edit while responding to a help request at User talk:Timtrent/Archive 18#Please solve my "Oops". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Philosophical Transactions A, 28 February 2012 cover.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Philosophical Transactions A, 28 February 2012 cover.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales - Broken Link

Many thanks for fixing this, appreciate your help.Clivemacd (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Redaction on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

Now obviously I won't bring up the subject topic, or ask you to, but is that really not suitable for public discussion? And if not where should it go? It's a semi-serious privacy issue that shouldn't really be hidden from users... Any idea who to report it to? Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 13:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tink (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Tink (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Gongshow   talk 01:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
You know a lot of stuff.....   Bfpage |leave a message  23:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks !

Thanks for helping me out with the language links. Ivan Scott Warren (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Cluestick

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Book creator conclusion

On March 27 your response to my questions included you stating: "The book creator tool can only work on one book at a time without saving it. Click "Contributions" at the top of any page to see all your edits, including to saved books. Click "Subpages" at the bottom of that page to see a list of your userspace pages including books." So, basically a "book" is really a type of subpage? Is that correct? Swamixyz (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Swamixyz: Yes, a user book is saved as a subpage with some software features associated. Books can also be shared with others by saving them in the Book namespace and listed in Category:Wikipedia books (community books). User books are also visible to everybody but others will rarely see them. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bob Durgin page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for trying hard to get me a solution! I appreciate it! JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 18:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That was an odd issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you

	Teahouse Barnstar
	I don't want multiple barnstars to go to your head, but I do want you to know that your many useful and helpful answers are noticed and appreciated. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

re host nations

sorry,those didn't write (1) coz I can't confirm whether they host one tournament or not.I will check them or you can delete the (1).--Chinyen Lu (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

response to your post on my account

	response to your post on my account
	I did not make misleading edits. They were grammar. I can't find a single article on wikipedia to edit bc every age is semi-protected so I edit people's comments. Yes, my edits are all minor. Severus01 (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Severus01: Click "diff" at Special:Contributions/Severus01 to see your edits. Most of the edits marked minor with a bold m do not satisfy Help:Minor edit. Please read that page to see what is considered a minor edit. And most of your edits with edit summary "grammar" were not about grammar. Less than 1% of our articles are protected. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What about semi-protected pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Severus01 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Severus01: Less than 1% includes semi-protected. It's closer to 0.1%. If you keep hitting Random article at the top left then you probably have to be really patient to find a page with any protection. But pages many users want to edit are more likely to get conflicts that cause protection, so a typical user is much more likely than 0.1% of actually meeting a protected page when they want to edit something. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Accidental revert

Apologies, that was an accidental revert, caused by trying to scroll down a watchlist on an iPhone. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Problem Concerning the Coconut (song) article.

An editor who goes by the name of Nikkimaria has twice reverted a recent edit that I made to this article, Coconut (song). It is under the section called "Appearances". She not only reverted the edit, but also the source that I provided to prove it. I added that the song was performed on a skit on The Muppet Show featuring Kermit the Frog on a hospital bed. The source that I provided, which I feel is encyclopedic and reliable, is from the Muppet Wiki site, who, like Wikipedia, has also encyclopedic articles and is, I feel, a very good and very reliable encyclopedic source, although Nikkimaria disagrees. Here is the article link so you can check it out for yourself:

http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Coconut

I am only reporting this to you because I don't want to risk any edit wars as edit wars are against Wikipedia rules and regulations as they can get a user's editing privileges suspended or revoked depending on how the situation is. Could you probably look into this and hopefully, make the aforementioned user see that the source that I provided is, as I feel, reliable and encyclopedic. Thanks. Frschoonover (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Frschoonover: Anyone can make an account and edit Wikia wikis like the Muppet Wiki so they fail WP:USERGENERATED. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

	Hello, PrimeHunter. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. --Bananasoldier (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Just Wondering

Have you been too Nyhavn? (You don't have to answer) TeaLover1996 (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, long ago. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Multiple sandboxes

Although you didn't make the offer to me, I'd like to take up your offer at Wikipedia:Help desk#Continuation of talkspace/sandbox issue to "provide code to make a direct "Sandbox2" link (and "Sandbox3" or as many as you want) next to "Sandbox" at the top of each page". Thanks, in anticipation - Arjayay (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I have posted code there. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I've installed them - Initially only Sandbox 2 worked, not Sandbox 3, but having put content in No2, No3 now works as well - Thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

May I ask for your help again?

       Hello PrimeHunter.  I'm doing quite well with the "NO save" editing of my User talk:Richard27182/sandbox.  There are certain types of edit testing I prefer to do in my User:Richard27182/sandbox.  Should I also avoid saving things there or, since it's not in talkspace, would saving be OK there.  And *if* saving there is OK, does it make a difference how many times I save?
       On a completely unrelated subject, I'm considering making a change to an article.  It wouldn't be my first change to an article, but it *would* be the first time I remove material as opposed to adding or slightly altering material.  I've started a discussion on the article's talk page.  If you have time and if it wouldn't be inconvenient, perhaps you could take a quick look at it and give me your opinion.  The discussion is at Talk:Kinescope#Removal of "fluid" look does not make a great deal of difference????.   As always I appreciate any help or advice you give me.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: It's OK to make lots of test edits at User:Richard27182/sandbox. They are visible to everybody in the page history but nobody will probably bother to look at them. I still recommend you get a second sandbox. If you don't want to use code to add links to your interface then you could just place a link like [[User:Richard27182/sandbox2]] at the top of User:Richard27182/sandbox. Then sandbox2 would be as easy to access as User talk:Richard27182/sandbox. All you have to do to create User:Richard27182/sandbox2 is to click the red link, write anything and save. If you do save more edits at the talk page (for example by accident when trying to preview) then SineBot may sign them since talk pages are meant for discussions with signed posts. There is already a bunch of SineBot signings in the page history [4]. In case you don't know, you can click "Contributions" at the top right of any page to see your edits. It includes links to the pages you have recently edited so that may be another way to quickly find a sandbox. I see somebody else has posted to Talk:Kinescope#Removal of "fluid" look does not make a great deal of difference???? I don't know the topic and am not getting involved. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

      Hello PrimeHunter.  Thank you for your advice.  I had already thought of doing both your suggestion for creating a second sandbox, and also your suggestion for quick, easy access to it.  But one thing was holding me back: I wasn't sure if that would create an actual sandbox or just a regular page.  Anyway since you suggested it, I did it and I now have a second sandbox with easy access.  But I do have a question about it.  I noticed that my original sandbox was created with the code    "{{User sandbox}} <!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->"    automatically placed at the beginning, but my new sandbox lacks that code.  I'm curious, what is the reason for this?  And is my new sandbox just as officially a sandbox as the original?
      As you can see, I stopped saving anything to my user talk page after we discussed that that was a bad thing to do. But I get the feeling that those saves I'd already done count as a sort of "black mark" against me. Is there some way to undo them. Or if not, as time passes will they be considered less and less significant?
      As always I am most grateful for your help and advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: "Sandbox" is just a general term for a test page for experimenting. The name is from Sandbox (software development) and not a wiki invention. There is no concept of an "actual" sandbox. It's always just a regular page and "sandbox" is merely a description of what it's used for. It isn't required to have "sandbox" in the name or {{User sandbox}} in the code but I suggest adding the latter. The software is coded to automatically add it if a user creates the /sandbox page by clicking the "Sandbox" link at top of the interface but it's voluntary whether to keep it there and whether to add it to other user sandbox pages. It's clear from the name that User:Richard27182/sandbox2 is a sandbox and it doesn't get more official than that. If you want I can move User talk:Richard27182/sandbox to the appropriate namespace like User:Richard27182/sandbox3. The page history would move with it so the edits would no longer appear as user talk edits in Special:Contributions/Richard27182. You can also move it yourself but if you haven't moved pages before then something might go wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

      Hello PrimeHunter.  Thank you for your reply.
      If I'm reading you correctly then "sandbox" is not so much a technical characteristic of a page, but rather describes what you are doing with a page.  And "{{User sandbox}}" is something intended to be placed at the top of a page that will be used as a sandbox; and it's use is recommended but not mandatory.  (Don't worry; I'm not going to ask you for all the details about what it does.)
      One part of your reply that I didn't understand is the part about "[moving] User talk:Richard27182/sandbox to the appropriate namespace like User:Richard27182/sandbox3."  What is confusing me is I thought there were a limited number of pre-defined namespaces (eg, mainspace, User:, Template:, File:, etc.).  It sounds like you're talking about creating a new namespace called User:Richard27182/sandbox3.  It's also not clear to me if doing so would in any way affect the way I would go about accessing my sandboxes (or anything else).  Until I have a better understanding of these concepts, I'd like to hold off making any such changes.
      One issue that your reply didn't really address is whether or not, over time (months, a year, or more), the saved edits I did in User talk:Richard27182/sandbox would eventually be chalked up as mistakes made by an inexperienced editor at the very beginning of his Wikipedia "career," and more or less "forgiven."
      I do have one new question.  I've noticed that you usually begin your replies with {{ping|Richard27182}}.  I've looked up "ping" (as it applies to Wikipedia) and I understand it somehow notifies the referenced user that someone has written to or about them.  My questions are how (generally) the notification is delivered (eg., is it by email?); and also, would it be appropriate for me to use "ping" when I write something to someone and want to get their attention?
      I realize I've been asking you for lots of help, and I do very much appreciate your taking the time to reply.  I'm trying my best to learn all the stuff I need to know on my own through tutorials, looking at the work of other editors, and my own experimentation.  But sometimes I come across something that I just can't figure out on my own and need to ask for help from someone more experienced.  I hope you don't mind.  Thanks again.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: You are reading me correctly about "sandbox". User:Richard27182/sandbox3 was just an example page name. The namespace is only "User" (also called "User:"). User:Richard27182/sandbox3 would behave exactly like User:Richard27182/sandbox2. You could add a link to both at top of User:Richard27182/sandbox if you want easy access to both. If User talk:Richard27182 is not moved and you remain active so the edits fall back at Special:Contributions/Richard27182 then nobody will probably blame you when some months have passed, but I cannot be certain what others will think or say. {{ping|Richard27182}} calls Template:Ping to make a wikilink to your user page. Such a link (regardless how it was made) in a signed post is supposed to cause a notification at the top of your screen, but I don't know how it works on a tablet. Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events has a screenshot for a desktop browser. Only the red "4" is seen at first and clicking it shows the new notifications. All notifications are listed at Special:Notifications. A notification when you are "pinged" requires that you haven't removed the default checkmark under "Web" at "Mention" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. If you also want an email notification then add a checkmark under "Email". You can use the feature yourself and for example write {{ping|PrimeHunter}} to get my attention, but here on my own user talk page it would be pointless since users are automatically notified by any edit to their user talk page. In most other situations it would be appropriate or at least not inappropriate, but it's voluntary and often omitted if the user is expected to be watching the page anyway. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

      Hello PrimeHunter.
      Thank you for writing.  I'm afraid I'm still not following the part about moving User talk:Richard27182.  I think I need to get more familiar with how the various namespaces work before I'll be able to understand what we'd actually be doing.  Unless you feel it's really urgent to move it now, or unless waiting a few weeks or a month would make it too late to have a beneficial effect, I think I'd rather not do anything about it for the time being.
      If I understand what you've told me about "ping," it's something I can use to notify a user who I've mentioned in a posting or message, presumably to let them know there's something they would probably want to read.  I understand that how successful it will be depends on various things including their account settings and even the platform they're running. And I understand it would be OK for me to use it myself if the message/posting is somewhere other than that user's talk page (because in that case the notification would be automatic).  Did I get all that right?  If I did, then I think I'm OK for now.  Again, many thanks.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: It's not urgent. You are right about pings, but I thought users with mobile devices would normally also get an indication they had been pinged, like a red number at the top of the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

      Hi PrimeHunter.  I should have mentioned in my previous message that my tablet does indeed receive the clickable (technically "tappable" or "touchable" in my case) red number at the top of the page when I am pinged.  Thank you for all your help and advice; it is very much appreciated.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Richard 27182 needs a different kind of help.

Hi PrimeHunter. I have been having a "discussion" (if you could call it that) with another editor about a relatively small change I feel needs to be made in an article. The discussion, along with the other editor's position, can be found here: Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)#Incorrect terminology needs correction.. The discussion has been going on for some time now and has quite a lengthy talk section, but the dispute is no closer to being resolved now than when it started. He won't discuss my arguments in favor of the change; instead he just keeps insisting he's right. I believe there is no hope of the two of us working out this problem through simple discussion. And very few people seem to be interested in joining the discussion. Because I'm new at this, I'm not sure what additional steps I could take to help lead to some kind of resolution. Could you please give me some advice. (I'm thinking of the Wikipedia version of an appeal.) Your help and advice are very much apprecited.
Richard27182 (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: I haven't examined the discussion. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution has general help but it may be time to move on. It seems a minor issue and we have 6918597 other articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter.  Thank you for your advice about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.  As a matter of fact I've been looking into that, studying how that procedure works and thinking about what I would say if I utilize it.  I understand what you're saying about the issue seeming to be minor.  And in some ways it may actually be minor.  But with all due respect, doesn't that fact apply to Onel5969 just as much as it applies to me?  Anyway thanks again for the advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus. You are the one wanting to keep discussing it and bring in more editors when your side lacks support so I think it applies more to you. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thankyou for all your help! Azealia911 talk 14:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

An old issue revisited

Hello PrimeHunter.
      It's been a while since we've been in touch; I hope you're doing well.
      Some time ago we'd talked about moving some practice editing I'd done in User talk:Richard27182/sandbox over to another location (such as User:Richard27182/whatever).  But I was confused and wanted to hold off.  But I think I might understand it now.  When you talk about moving User talk:Richard27182/sandbox, are you talking about literally moving the page itself or just the contents and edit history of the page, with the actual page remaining where it is.  And if that's the case, would it basically be a matter of having that old practice editing appear to have been done in User:Richard27182/whatever?  Because if that's the case then I do understand and would be ready to carry it out.  Please let me know if my understanding of what would happen is accurate, and if it is, then I'll come up with the name I want to use for the new page and get back to you with it.  I really appreciate your taking the time to work with me.
Richard27182 (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: You are correct. It is literally the page itself which is moved, along with its edit history. It's like renaming a file and only takes a few seconds. The edits will appear to have been made at the new name. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter. And thank you for your continued patience with me. I'm still confused. I'd imagined that the way it worked was that the entire contents of the page along with its edit history would relocate to a different page, but the original page itself (at that point completely empty) would remain where it is. But it sounds like you're saying it too moves somewhere and that's what I don't understand. Does the old page become a subpage of something else; or does it remain where it is but no longer have any contents; or does it actually cease to exist? I know I must seem like a terrible bother with all this, but I really want to actually understand exactly what we're doing before we do it.
Richard27182 (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The old name becomes a redirect to the new name when a page is moved. Administrators (like me) can also choose to move a page without leaving a redirect at the old name. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter. Thanks for your quick reply. To be completely honest about it, I still feel I don't really understand how the process works; so for now I think I'd like to just leave things the way they are. But if at some point you feel the move needs to be done, then please let me know and we'll do it whether I understand it or not. Thanks very much; I really appreciate your advice and understanding.
Richard27182 (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The move would be a very minor routine operation with no negative consequences but it doesn't need to be done and users are given significant freedom in their own userspace so let's drop it. All the time wasted on this discussion is much worse than the issue being discussed. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter.  Sorry.  The last thing I wanted to do was upset you.  I agree with you, the topic is not that important so I won't mention it again.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Latin phrases (C)

Hi, PrimeHunter, I noticed your edit, Cedere Nescio (I Know Not How To Yield) is the motto of the HMAS Norman. Lotje (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Revdel my IP

Thanks. Use, please remove. And here, too. Duh. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. You could add this to your CSS:

#wpSave {background-color: green;}

It will make a green background on Save page when you are logged in, indicating it is safe to press the button. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Works very nicely. TYVM. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danmark Rundt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Struer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding Dirichlet's Theorem

I see you were the most recent editor of the article on this topic. I question a statement there. It may be, but I don't think it's the case that the related density extension of the Theorem should be regarded as a stronger version of it, historically speaking, rather than merely the simplest version of Chebotarev's Density Theorem or else The Prime Number Theorem for Primes in Arithmetic Progression. Is this a place where the article you edited needs improvement, or am I incorrect?Julzes (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Julzes (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Julzes: Divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the primes was proved in 1737. Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions was proved in 1837. The Prime number theorem was proved in 1896. Do you know when it was proved that for each arithmetic progression with the coprime condition, the sum of reciprocals of the primes diverges? When the start of the lead has only said there are infinitely many primes, and that is the usual statement of Dirichlet's theorem, it becomes a stronger statement that the sum of the reciprocals diverges. But if Dirichlet also proved the latter then the formulation may be misleading. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think you can see that I read what I expected as an error in the article rather than what it says. I haven't any idea about the sum of reciprocals, as far as when the proof regarding that is concerned. I'd guess it may fall (somewhat) naturally out of the original proof, but I can't say I know that. To me, if that's the case it would mean the article is perfectly accurate on what I was but wasn't questioning.Julzes (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that isn't what happened. I 'keyed' on the 2nd half of the sentence on 'stronger versions', then came here with too vague a question. The question is about different relatively prime congruence classes having approximately the same number of primes. It wasn't about the reciprocals at all, but I did fail to be very clear. Now, there may be some less strong versions of this that could be considered a stronger version of the theorem in question. But as no more is said about it, I do question this. But it is definitely a question, as I can only assert the asymptotic equality is more at beyond when the PNT was proved. I can't even recall what led me to look at the article, so please accept my apology for my own lack of clarity.Julzes (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC) No, that's too strong, actually. It may be that the asymptotic densities were not well defined but that the different residue classes were known close to each other. But it would strike me as a little surprising.Julzes (talk)- Calling it 'Dirichlet's Theorem' is probably a bit informal, but habit. As for what I was just saying was too strong, I think my meaning is clear that I can't say something bringing different residue classes counts of primes close to each other was not proved until after the Prime Number Theorem. It could well be the ratios of such counts were proven to head to 1 or known to be in some bounds first. This may be what the 2nd part not dealing with sums of reciprocals refers to.Julzes (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Composite number

Hey, thanks for your edit there; in my haste late at night, I thought that the IP editor was changing "2*2*3*3" to "2*2*3*2", hence my revert. Wow, I can't believe I did that. Graham87 01:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

An important copyright qusetion

Hi PrimeHunter .
      I'm sorry to be troubling you with yet another question, but this one is tricky and it involves copyrights, and despite extensive searching I have not been able to find the answer.  I know that Wikipedia policy prohibits postings that contain links to websites that contain or probably contain illegally uploaded copyrighted material.  But what about postings that simply identify the complete URL address of such a site but provide no actual links to the site.  For example:

• not this:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=illegally_uploaded_copyrighted_stuff    (is an actual link)
• but this:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=illegally_uploaded_copyrighted_stuff    (is not a link)

Is the second one OK because is is not a link; or would Wikipedia consider it to be practically as unacceptable as the first?  (This is not a theoretical question; I have actually encountered this issue in Wikipedia work I've done.)  As always I trust and appreciate your guidance and suggestions.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly say that WP:LINKVIO also applies to displaying a url. Answers at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14#Meaning of linking? agree. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter. Thank you for your reply. I will avoid displaying and/or linking to copyright-questionable URL's. (It's better to be safe than sorry.) Thanks again.
Richard27182 (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)