Wikipedia:TWA/Teahouse

The

Adventure

Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Live help chat »

• Learn more

Tenryuu, a Teahouse host

Experienced editor?
Become a host...

Question archive »

Truth and falsity of Wikipedia's articles

Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*?

Uploading Pictures.

How do I upload a picture (That I took) onto an article I am writing? Omar Elgazzar (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Omar! In the left hand column there should be a link in Tools labeled Upload file. It will walk you through the process of uploading an image and the appropriate permissions that are necessary. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are happy to license your image on a relatively free license (such as this one), please upload the image to the Wikimedia commons instead. This will allow the image to be easily accessed by all Wikimedia projects, such as Wikipedias in languages other than English. --

LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*?"EnveeNV (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutral reliable sources

I'm thinking of starting a page on a new travel company but the only sources it has are from the websites of it's sister companies. Would these sources be acceptable or would it be better to wait for press articles etc before beginning an article? (89.191.36.33 (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If this sort of coverage doesn't yet exist for the company, then the article should wait for a while. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Science and Nature Journal looks like a solid and relevant source with a good reputation. I think we can rely on it more than the others for this article. Nice research! Bpsychx12 (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Simple wikipedia?

I was reading an article that was linked from reddit http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moondyne_Joe and I noticed the writing was REALLY bad. I tried editing the article but noticed the "feel" of the site was "off" somehow. How is Simple Wikipedia related to Wikipedia?Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's relation is that it is owned by the same group that owns the Wikipedia. It is written in Basic English. The article at Simple Wikipedia has detail on it. RudolfRed (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Two kinds of pork. I actually emulated your name earlier tonight, Korean style. Yum. We have an article on the Simple English Wikipedia (SEW). In short, the SEW is intended to provide content for those with a very basic understanding of English. It is related to this Wikipedia insofar as it is also a website run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and shares the same software, but it is a completely separate site. Many people have said in the past that the Simple Wikipedia is something of a failed project, at least so far, as it has simply not attracted enough people to make it run smoothly and get its content up to snuff. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

BIOTEC Thailand: My created,BIOTEC, page was deleted

My name is Kultira. Presently, I am working as International Relations Officer at Thailand National Center for Genetic Engineering (BIOTEC), the official organization under the control of Thailand Ministry of Science and Technology. My duty is to be responsible for international collaboration and also all BIOTEC public relation both on domestic and international media. "Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*?"s we believe that Wikipedia is a channel to publish and distribute our works, recently I was assigned from my superior to upload BIOTEC information to Wikipedia in order to deliver our information to other international biotechnology organizations. However, after all information had been uploaded for a while, the page was deleted by "User:MadmanBot". This user claimed that I copied the content from this website, http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2465563, which was posted by our own researcher, and also this website is not relevant to BIOTEC at all.

As a result of above incident, I do understand that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that everyone is able to access, edit or even delete some information. However, I would like to ask you for the suggestion because it is very significant for my organization. Do I have to put the references or fill in any information blanks on Wikipedia website?

I also sent you herewith a link to our website for your reference. http://www.biotec.or.th/. Please kindly note that most of information I posted is from my own organization website with correct authorization.

I am looking forward to seeing your reply soon.

Thank you, Kultira(Som) International Cooperation Section National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, BIOTEC — Preceding unsigned comment added by PomeloatBIOTEC (talk • contribs) 01:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it is strongly discouraged to write about something you are affiliated with. Wikipedia has a guideline regarding conflicts of interest. You can write about your company, but, again, it is discouraged. For a subject to have an article, it must have cite reliable sources and meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Wikipedia also has further criteria for companies and organizations. If you still want to write about your company, you can consider drafting an article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation and submitting the article for review. You will have to remember that anyone can edit your article and you do not have ownership of the article. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kultira. In response to your question about text copied from a web site: Each editor who adds to Wikipedia must write as an individual (not a representative of an organization), and must use his or her own words, not text published elsewhere, even by others from your organization. I'm sure that you know Biotec well enough to write about it in your own words, so this shouldn't be a problem. You will have to be careful to write in a neutral, non-promotional fashion. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kultira. You may be confusing Wikipedia with some other sites that allow organizations to create and control information about their organization. Wikipedia is not like that: Wikipedia is absolutely NOT a channel to publish and distribute your works. —teb728 t c 04:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that placing text that is found on another site verbatim is a violation of copyright laws. So unless you provide the appropriate documentation on permissions, you cannot copy the Ministry's web site or anything on it. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Kultira and weocome to The Teahouse. Another problem with copying text from your site verbatim is that it would likely not be written in the neutral style Wikipedia requires.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Can one reference an interview?

I own an historic 19th century house that I have lived in for most of the last 42 years. Many of our guests have asked us to post its history on wikipedia, but most of my knowledge is based on discussions with my late father and with my living uncles. Can I reference interviews?DrJamesBaker (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dr Baker, welcome to the teahouse! Unfortunately personal recollections are not considered reliable sources; sources need to be published elsewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, DrJamesBaker. Although personal interviews aren't reliable sources, your living uncles may have kept newspaper clippings or may recall incidents which may have been reported in the news, leading you to find articles in the local news media or local history books. You may also consult the reference librarian at your local library, or ask at your local historical society to find written sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Doc! Another strategy for making the information you have verifiable and hence usable would be to contact a local newspaper and try to get someone there interested in writing about it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Question: style (encyclopedic format?) and avoid peacock terms?

Hello, I have received the following comment to my submission: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject". Please, could you advise me on how to amend the article, I have no idea...:( Thanks a lot in advance for any help!!!! Miroslava Atan (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC) mira

Question moved to top of page. NtheP (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Miroslava, and welcome to the teahouse! One phrase that stood out for me as being unduly promotional was "has been a reknowned(sic) teacher". To describe someone in this manner in Wikipedia, you need to cite sources that describe her that way.

In addition, I think your references need formatting (see WP:REFB for how to do this), and I don't think the comprehensive listing of everything she has ever published is really required.

Finally, I don't think a Yahoo Groups message counts as a reliable source, and in addition many or all of your listed sources seem to be from the person herself or from organisations with which she was involved; so they are not independent. Articles should demonstrate significant coverage of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources - see WP:42. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP and self-published sources

Hi all! I want to improve the article of an Indian politician, which is currently a stub. However, not much is available online, but I do have personal access to the politician, and can thus gather much more information via an interview. My question is whether such information will be accepted since it does not technically abide by the BLP guidelines and especially since we are advised to avoid self-published sources. Any help will be appreciated. Thank you. :) Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Avenue X, Sources do not need to be online; they are just easier to find if they are online. Sources need to be published reliable sources. An interview is not published, and (for the most part) a subject is not considered a reliable source about themself; so an interview cannot be used directly as a source. But the subject may be able to give you leads to published reliable sources. —teb728 t c 08:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. :) Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Although an interview or other direct communication with the subject of the article can't be used as a reference in an article, an experienced editor may find this form of communication useful. The interview subject may be able to provide photocopies of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are not available online. Those who think that Google has been successful to date in digitizing more than a very small percentage of reliable sources are sadly mistaken. Talking with the subject will lead to a deeper understanding of the context of the topic, allowing an editor committed to the neutral point of view to better evaluate sources and place various points into a balanced presentation. Do not "believe" everything the subject says, but listen and hear. You can't use that conversation directly on Wikipedia, but you can often be informed by it in ways that will guide you to better sources and a deeper understanding of what the full range of sources say about the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "Red Links" in articles

I have been working on disambig links and came across an article that has a lot of these red links (going to non existent pages). I am wondering are these all articles someone plans on creating? And do they just get left like that? When I come across a page that is linked to the diambig page and there is nothing suitable to direct the link to I just remove the link rather than create a non existent article page because then it would just be a red link with a blank article just like the ones I am curious about in this article correct? TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 03:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tattoodwaitress and welcome to the teahouse. This link to redlink guidelines might help you as it has a section on dealing with existing redlinks as well as when they should and shouldn't be used. I hope this helps. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahhhh thank you for the link to the guide. TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 04:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There isn't necessarily someone planning on making those articles; the link is put in because someone considered the subject notable enough to potentially have an article, even though they possibly never will. Red links are generally especially welcome in lists such as these, simply for consistency's sake (this is an unwritten rule). See the policy WP:REDYES for more information. I hope this answers your question.  — TORTOISEWRATH 04:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok well it kinda answers my question but leaves me confused, which coincidentally is not hard to do. For example I was working on disambig links. The link to the bicycle store named "pivot" went to the disambig page. There is no appropriate link to direct that link to so i removed it. The original writer of that list thought that "pivot" (same with the other two that I removed I think it was two) the bicycle store was notable hence the original link. Now since it it suggested even encouraged to create these red links (to topics of notable content) should i create a red link for the one I removed? Am I making sense?TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 04:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to remove the link from Pivot was correct. It happens reasonably often people create a wikilink without checking that it is going where they expect it to go. I don't think you need to create a redlink by changing it to say [[Pivot Bicycle Company]] but you could if you wanted to. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 04:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The key to understanding when to and when not to redlink is in understanding WP:N. A good example of an appropriate redlink might be the addition of someone who was a state senator at one time to an alumni list in a high school article. As a state senator, the person is automatically notable, so a redlink would be appropriate. However, you will more often find in a high school alumni list that some person has added their girlfriend, and that would not be an appropriate redlink, unless of course she was actually notable for something other than her high school adventures. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Got it. I understand that part. If i personally were going to create a red link I would use the knowledge at hand to do so. But I removed links that were already there. All the other stores in the lists on the page in question have links. Some red... quite a few red in fact....some not. The only ones without links now are the three that I removed so my question was since there were already links there because some other editor thought they should be linked and I quote TortoiseWrath above "simply for consistency's sake " was wondering if I should put red links in the spaces that I removed the disambig links from. No where in any of the articles/guidelines that I have been directed to does it state what to do in this particular case. I am fine with leaving them as I have left them but just wanted to do the right thing as far as wiki guidelines is concerned. Since I am not an expert in the topic of bicycles I have no idea if those bicycles stores are notable or not. Anyhow I do appreciate all the information regarding the redlinks as it was very helpful. I am sorry if I am over thinking this. Thanks again. TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 04:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You could do that if you wanted to, by changing [[Pivot]] which as you said goes to that list, to [[Pivot Bicycle Company|Pivot]] but you are not under any obligation to do so and I would only do it if I knew absolutely that the company was notable. Hope that clarifies for you. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC))

Yes, thank you that's better. TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 16:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm just a user hanging out in the Teahouse because I learn things from some of the comments so I hope its OK to throw in my 2 cents but I disagree with some of what's been said. There is another policy that is relevant here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Write_the_article_first IMHO the days when making red links was a good idea has come and gone. Wikipedia needs to worry as much these days about quality control as just growth and having lots of links that go nowhere makes the site look less professional and reliable. Mdebellis (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC

Hi, Mdebellis. You are more than welcome to hang out here. This is where I learned most of what I know about Wikipedia! Although I couldn't agree with you more about the subject of redlinks and quality in general, I should point out to you that WP:WTAF is an essay, not a policy. Essays are kind of akin to the editorial page in the newspaper. It is the opinion of one or a group of editors on how existing policies should be interpreted, and not policy itself. I agree with it wholeheartedly, but their are editors that don't and their opinion is valid too. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the difference, I didn't know that. But I still disagree about the red links. To me its simple math. Its a lot easeir to make a red link then to make an article. Human nature being what it is eventually the red links will overwhelm the system. Besides although I'm just getting familiar with them its clear to me that there are now much better ways to document an article that needs to be created than putting a dead link that will confuse users. There are many different working groups with queues of articles to create. The appropriate thing IMO is to add new articles to those queues not to just create dead links. And if an artcile isn't important enough to go into one of those queues then that is a good indication the article will not and probably should not be written any time soon. Mdebellis (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Couldn't have said it any better myself! I am glad you are a Wikipedian! Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I gotta admit that I am pretty excited that my question has generated so much interaction here. I totally agree with Mdebellis and grateful for your thoughts. Cheers to all and Thanks TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 02:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just one editor's opinion, but I'm a fan of the rule "is this article likely to ever exist?" There are millions of people who are incidentally mentioned in a larger topic, who are not themselves notable and will probably never have an article, so no need to link those. But there are many people, locations, objects which credibly should have articles, or in some cases already have articles under a different name or spelling (which require a WP:Redirect to bridge that gap), so those are worth redlinking. So far as lists, for many lists of people (which are often horribly clusters of just random names), at least for lists of Indian castes, our convention is not to add a name to a list unless it is a bluelink, so that lists don't just become every business owner, adjunct professor, etc. that happens to be descended from a given community. So a few ways to look at it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WP shortcuts

I have come across this before but I can't locate it now when I need it. What is the shortcut that applies to an edit which places new information in front of an existing citation, but the citation doesn't support the edit? Flat Out let's discuss it 03:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FAKE maybe? —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, unfortunately that's not the one I'm after. For example: Flat out supported the Hawthorn Football Club in season 2012 [1]. Then someone comes along and inserts "and 2013" in front of that reference which doesn't include that added information, when they should have edited; Flat out supported the Hawthorn Football Club in season 2012[1] and again in 2013[2]. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There's also the {{cn-span}} template which will highlight text that needs a citation specifically. For example, "Roses are red^[1] and violets are blue". {{Failed verification}} could be used to raise discussion on a talk page saying that a specific statement was not in the citation. {{Failed verification}} has a "talk" parameter which can be used to link to a talk page to discuss the issue. —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Does this qualify for deletion?

File:Simon Raab.jpg does this qualify for deletion? I'm not sure what the specifics are regarding 'bad' language or signs. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Aggie80. It does qualify for deletion, but not because the subject is flipping the bird. It is eligible for deletion solely because, when uploaded, the information about the source and licensing of the image is incomplete. --Jayron32 01:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Wikipeia is actually not censored, so if the image is uploaded per Wikipedia's policies, such an image is allowed on Wikipedia. ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 02:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The fingers are, however, not up to "Disney Standards" as I found out when I tried to buy my photo after riding Splash Mountain at Disneyland back in 1988  :) Flat Out let's discuss it 02:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that even if this image was properly licensed for fair use, it could never properly appear on this page. All non-free copyrighted images can only appear in the article(s) where the fair use is claimed to exist. I have accordingly turned the image into a link by prefixing a colon inside the markup.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That was more my newness in not putting the reference in correctly. I was surprised when the picture actually appeared. I'll never approve an article with a picture like that, I'll let someone with a higher tolerance for garbage do that. As far as I'm concerned, something like that detracts from the credibility and seriousness of Wikipedia and contributes to the overall decline of society.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As well as WP:Wikipedia is not censored, we have the guideline Wikipedia:Offensive_material. To put it shortly, while potentially useful material isn't removed because it may offend some, Wikipedia has no interest in being transgressive. As such if more "vanilla" ways of getting the same content across are available, these will generally be preferred. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for such an image in the vast majority of our articles. On the other hand, we have a well referenced article on Finger (gesture) where a freely licensed image of the hand gesture is entirely appropriate. Let's not conflate licensing and copyright issues, which are legal ones, with issues of editorial judgment about which images are appropriate for which articles. That is not a legal issue, but more a debate about encyclopedic value in the context of serious discussion of a specific topic. In my view, images should be chosen to inform and educate, rather than to shock and alienate. But when we are dealing with socially taboo topics, these decisions can be difficult. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Article Titles

I know I'm being really stupid but I have a total blank on how to do something. I've got an article written on my sandbox "User:Ned1966/sandbox" which I have just submitted to go live but I want the title to be "Hugh Murphy" (Level 1) but there is no where for me to specify that. If the article is accepted how will it be titled? How do I name the file? Ned1966 (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ned. What you are looking for is how to move the page: that is how page titles are changed. When it has been accepted, you pick "Move" from the toolbar at the top of the page (in my case it's hidden under a down-arrow, but I think that may depend on your preferences) and move it to "Hugh Murphy".

However, while I'm not doing a full review, I can see two major problems right at the start of your article: first, it doesn't have a "lede" or introductory section, before the first heading, to give some context to a reader who happens on the article and has never heard of Hugh Murphy. It will probably start "Hugh Murphy was a record producer who worked with ...". Secondly, the second sentence describes him as a "talented and clever record producer". This is an example of what we call peacock language: rather than being neutral, as fits an encyclopaedia, it is slanting the text in his favour and telling the reader what to think. In general, evaluative words like "talented" and "clever" should be used in Wikipedia articles only if they are directly from a cited reliable source: you can say that "Melody Maker called him a talented and clever producer" for example, but the article should not itself say it.

You've made a good start at the article, but like many people's first attempt, its referencing is inadequate. Really, every incident, fact or claim about him should be cited to a specific reliable source; for example the bit about David Bailey. Some of your references are to other Wikipedia articles, which is not allowed as a reference (Wikipedia is not a reliable source) but is very much encouraged as a wikilink. So rather than saying Shel Talmy with a reference, write [[Shel Talmy]], which will appear in the text as Shel Talmy. Youtube is usually not regarded as a reliable reference either. On the other hand, some of your references do look like good ones, but you can improve them by formatting them better, with author, date, and link to the specific page. See WP:Referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ned: There is another way to move your page. In the large yellow submission box there is a line of text which says "Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox (move).". Click on the word "(move)", and you will be taken to another page which will warn you that the page already exists. In the "Move Page" box below, change the name from "Articles for creation/sandbox" to "Articles for creation/Your page name here". (substitute the name you want) Then click on the "Move page" box. Your page will be moved to the new name. The "Articles for creation" part has to stay until the article is accepted, then it will be removed. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible Wikilinks

I saw a tool/script which suggests the possible Wikilink in an article. I though it could be very helpful for newly created articles. (as usual) I can not remember what was the tool/script. (I am not talking about Find Link) --Tito☸Dutta 20:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia:Scripts#Wikilink_filters what you're looking for? Sorry I'm not as familiar with scripts. If not maybe WP:TOOL or Wikipedia:Tools/Greasemonkey user scripts...? Hopefully another host can jump in >_< ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 02:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This article Flaming Idiots has an orphan tag on it which has a link that seems to find suggested links. I'm not sure what script it calls. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• No, there was a simple tool similar to Find Link. --Tito☸Dutta 03:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Cannot edit headline or first para of article I created.

Hi. I'm trying to make some changes to the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashrita_Furman.

Although I created it and do most of the maintenance to keep it up to date, I cannot find a way to edit the headline or the first para of the article.

I know it's probably staring me in the face, but I can't see it. I'm completely stuck on this and I'd be grateful for any help.

Northstar7 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Northstar7, and welcome to the Teahouse. To edit the first section of an article, you can edit the entire article by clicking Edit at the top of the page (usually next to "View History"), instead of on the right or beside the section title. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If by "headline", you mean the title of the article, you should see a down arrow at the top, which when clicked allows you to move the page. To edit the top paragraph, you can either click edit in the top tabs and edit the whole page, or go to Special:Preferences and find the option that reads something like "add [edit] links to the lead section of articles".--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note, it is possible that due to 'preferences' settings you see a "plus sign" instead of the normal "edit", or that the choice is buried in a dropdown. Revent (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk to another editor

Hi, i'm new to Wikipedia. I just added some comments which was removed by another editor. I would like to communicate with the person. Can you tell me how to do it. I checked the talk page tutorials and found it rather confusing and verbose. Thanks! Rajsundar0703 (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rajsundar, I see that you know that you should sign your posts on talk pages. On the editor's signature, there should be a link to his talk page. Just click that link. On his talk page, create a new section by clicking New section (beside the Edit button). From there, fill in your message as well as the title and save the page. Further discussion about the same issue/topic will continue in that section. Cheers! Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Arctic Kangaroo. Will look into this! Rajsundar0703 (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Just feel free to ask here or on my talk page if you ever need any more help.
Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Does creating an account hide the IP address of old edits or only new edits?

Does creating an account hide the IP address of old edits or only new edits? I created an account but when I go to the edit history of pages I have edited, I still see my IP address. Cytokinetics (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cytokinetics, when you create an account, any edits you made as an I.P will remain visible. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, while edits made with an account are not publicly associated with an IP address, your IP address is still recorded in Wikipedia's datasets. However this information can only be accessed by a small number of users (currently about 40 people), and they would only ever use this power if there were grounds to believe your account was being used maliciously. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

How do I respond to another user

I am trying to respond to two users who have sent me conflicting information about fixing the article I'm working on. Where is this done? PacifiCali650 (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi PC650. If an editor has contacted you on your talkpage it is best to reply there to keep the conversation in one place. If it on an article talkpage also reply at the same place. We start with a colon to indent the reply for clarity. The other editor will be watching the page and see that you have replied.--Charles (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

PacifiCali650, if you think that the person you are trying to answer hasn't seen your message, you can leave a "talkback" message on his or her talk page. To find out how to use these messages, check out:Template:Talkback. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If you mean replying to myself and the other editor who replied to you further down this page (I don't see our advice as conflicting, incidentally), then you click Edit alongside the section heading for that section, and then write your reply with the appropriate number of : characters for indenting at the start of it, then sign your comment with four tildes, then enter your Edit Summary, then click Save Page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you Help me with a Page?

I just Created a page Camp Creek, Tennessee and need some help adding some stuff. Jesus Lover0000 (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jesus Lover0000; the first thing you should add are some references to reliable sources. If there was a tornado at Camp Creek, there must be some news articles about this incident. You can add the name of each newspaper, the date, and the title of the story to your article to confirm the information. I've added a television reference for you. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you Anne Jesus Lover0000 (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Citing a reference

I am a new contributor and am still finding my way around. I am adding to the San Mateo, California article and I've noticed that my references at the end are not like the original ones. My references are not colored light blue to where you can open them. What am I doing wrong? Ron Wick PacifiCali650 (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ron, welcome to the Teahouse. To get web URLs to link to they have to enclosed in single [ ] brackets. If you add those to all your references that should solve your problem. However it is preferred that something more than a bare URL is use and a title as well would be the minimum expected. To do this you use [http://www.bbc.co.uk BBC] url, space, then title, all within the [ ] brackets to produce BBC. Hope this helps. NtheP (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ron, you've also duplicated a lot of material and sections within that article, so that the Table of Contents, for example, looks like this:

16 Notable residents
17 See also
18 References
19 Further reading
20 External links
21 Other services
22 Prominent places
23 Media
24 Sister cities
25 Notable residents
26 See also
27 References
28 Further reading
29 External links

This needs fixing. Articles only need one References section, one External Links section, one See Also section, and one Further Reading section, not two of each. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

May I know how I can improve my article? and a question regarding sources...

I made an article ( Link is attached for reference.) I would appreciate it if anyone can enlighten me on how to improve the article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Piso_Point

Magnesite88 (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Magnesite88, welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at your article, it isn't quite there because its format doesn't meet the usual guidelines for a location article and there aren't Reliable sources to provide information for the article. The reviewers left you directions on how to find those. As to format, take a look at Promontory Point (Chicago) for a decent article on a "point". Let us know if you need more help. Good luck! EBY (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Article rejected for lack of citations

I recently created a new article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/William_Volk) and the reply was that it was rejected for lack of citations.

While I understand the general concept of citations, I am not sure of the "mechanical" requirements for Wikipedia and would like some help regrading this.

Some examples in context would be a big help along with some clarification of the appropriate use and overuse.

With your help, I hope to meet all the requirements for this to be a successfully accepted article.

Sincerely,

Bryan Kilburn (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. Please take a look at WP:Referencing for beginners.--ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Bryan, you can click on the links in the actual rejection notice for helps on the citation. The good thing is that you have more issues with the formatting then with the content. Drop me a note if you are still having trouble and I'll do what I can to help. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Truth and Wikipedia

"Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*?" Dolphinsunrisecelery (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm also new here. How do we know anything on Wikipedia is *true*?Aredbee (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*? BenBrownBoy BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 14:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Truth and Wikipedia

"Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*?" $oukm (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Truth and Wikipedia

"Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*?"MR2David (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Truth and Wikipedia

Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*?Tomatoeffort (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)