Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 808

Hi, I have a question about when you click view history of an article or your contributios you see these numbers in parentheses. For example, if I create an article that'll be a +6,000 (random number) and if I delete something it'll be -11 (random number). What do these points mean? (Pardon for my grammar and spelling I'm typing on a tablet) Yanjipy (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Yanjipy. The numbers aren't points. They're simply character counts. If I take out the phrase "a number of" (which is 10 characters including spaces) and replace it with "some" my edit should show a +6. (When looking through a page history those numbers can help you spot most of the big edits.) - Egmonster (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Egmonster. When should I check in the minor edits box though? Yanjipy (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You'll find the definition at WP:minor edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Good question, Yanjipy, and thanks for caring about getting details right. Yes, the "minor edit" link in the label of the checkbox is the official word. Briefly, the minor edit label is for edits which nobody could possibly dispute... and some editors can be pretty picky, often for good reasons of which we may be unaware. If it changes the content, it's not minor. Even adding an apostrophe may not be minor. It was fine to tick the "minor edit" box for your missing period, or typos that don't change meaning at all, but moving a page to a revised name is absolutely not a minor edit. Fortunately you are providing pretty clear edit summaries so it's easier for future editors to trace page history despite occasional mistakes. (I'm not a very experienced editor, and I've recently learned painfully, not to skimp on my edit summaries as I've sometimes done. A teeny edit is particularly hard to spot, so it needs to be described so someone wouldn't have to search it out. Edit summaries should often be a lot longer and more effort than edits!) Bottom line, you'll rarely need to tick "minor" and if there's the slightest doubt, don't. - Egmonster (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Frustrating! Wikipedia has no deadlines but the Teahouse sure has, and no way to know ahead of time how long it will be before I can't find my question any longer or until it gets archived. I was writing and previewing my reply, but hit a glitch in formatting mention of other users. What's the right way to name someone on my reply here: with an at-sign, or with curly braces and u followed by pipe, or square brackets with u-colon-name-pipe-name-again (to make name appear without the "u:")? Does the curly brace format trigger the "so-and-so mentioned you" courtesy notification?

I was trying to thank jmcgnh and say I looked long and hard for any kind of Cite label but it isn't there on my device.

Also Nick Moyes, I wanted to say thanks. I can try that, or just replace the obsolete reference with the newer one in Source edit mode, except I've been searching the Wikipedia Manual of Style and just can't find guidance on what to do about the pipe character in the title of the newer reference: replace it with some kind of dash, maybe?

Anyway, I'm grateful for you taking the time to answer me, especially Nick Moyes, who understood my question; and thanks also to Barbara ✐ whom I did not get to thank before my previous question was archived. - Egmonster (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Egmonster: Your contribution history shows that some of your edits were done through the mobile interface. I'm sorry if the directions I give are only good in the desktop interface, and using the so-called "source editor". It's a bit like the "if your only tool is a hammer" problem.... I've tried the visual editor and found it does not suit my editing needs at all. Similarly, when I have to do things with my phone, I go down to the bottom of the page and ask for the desktop view.

Just using the @-sign in a message does not get turned into a notification. You must use the {{ping}} template or one of its relatives for the other user to get a notification. The {{u}} template does not add an @-sign or colon like the ping template, but also sends a notification. The square-bracket version can work, but - as you've noted - it takes some extra work to make it look as nice as the {{u}} template. Users whose names are mentioned via square-bracket links to their user page are also notified. All notifications are dependent on finding a new signature with the four tildes in the same edit submission as the various forms of markup that do notification.

The Teahouse has become much busier in the past year or so, so archiving off inactive sections after just 3 days is important to keep the page from growing much too large.

I'm answering things in random order, it seems.... There's a template {{!}} that can be used where a pipe symbol (|) appears in one of a template's parameters. The {{!}} will be rendered as a | in the final presentation. And, sometimes, the thing before or after the pipe is added by a website when you go to copy a title in order to preserve its name when pasted - these additions should be removed from the pasted title and may appear in the website=, Work=, or other citation parameter as appropriate. If two of these parameters have essentially the same information, leave one of them out; there's no need for the references section to contain pointless repetition.

So, stay in touch and be prepared for the fastmoving pace of the Teahouse. Some editors only get to WP on weekends, or at longer intervals, but there seem to be a bunch of people who are here nearly every day, if not 24/7! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, jmcgnh. That's very helpful! - Egmonster (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, if you can see here on this wikimedia page here I attempted to update a portion of a soccer kit with different colors (see the File History). However the thumbnail did not show the lighter shade of blue so I reverted to the original. However after I reverted, the light blue version appeared in the thumbnail in the file history. I attempted to revert back to that, but it did not work. Weird. Any help would be appreciated. Zac ary (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Zac ary, welcome to the Teahouse. There is sometimes a delay before image versions at different sizes are updated by the software. I see light blue now. If you still see dark blue somewhere then please link the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I just joined Wikipedia tonight and I submitted my first post in the 'Sandbox' I was wondering if it's possible to change the title as I want it to read 'Knight Ozzy Osbourne' since it is about my campaign to knight him. Here is the link for you to check out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Helen_Maidiotis/sandbox

Thanks,

Kind Regards,

Helen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen Maidiotis (talk • contribs) 06:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Helen. Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. You can't publicise your Facebook campaign here, I'm afraid. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I am a new (unpublished) editor. I have been in the process of researching and drafting an article about an author, but in the meantime someone created such an article, albeit one short on details.

My research is far wider and deeper than that published, and will make a much better article as a consequence. How do I proceed? Do I simply overwrite the existing article?

Also, I may need some assistance with formatting, especially as regards citations/references. Are there mentors/elmers on Wiki who can guide me with that?

Thanks, BB — Preceding unsigned comment added by BallBearings (talk • contribs) 13:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello BallBearings and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have the impression I've seen your question answered, but it has been languishing here.

• Yes, you can replace an existing article. It's better to merge content and preserve others' worthwhile contributions
• Other editors with experience formatting articles will gladly pitch in
• I'm just a little concerned about the extent to which your "researching and drafting" may constitute original research, so I just want you to be aware of the policy in that area before you get too deep.

The Teahouse is here to help with any of your questions about how to edit Wikipedia! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@jmcgnh Thank you for the response. All of the research I have done on the (deceased) person is backed by documentation (certificates, newspaper articles, etc) that will be cited in the references -- hence my mention of needing some assistance with formatting those. I have used as my overall template another article on an author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BallBearings (talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallBearings: OK, but you use the word "certificates" which rings a different alarm bell. Most certificates are not published documents, so can't be used as references on WP. Some certificates are backed up by registries, which can be cited, but with a certain degree of caution because of the possibility of name clashes or other reasons to suspect the registry entry may not correspond to the subject. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I refer to death certificate, army discharge certificate, etc, all of which I have obtained copies of from the respective registries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BallBearings (talk • contribs) 17:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallBearings: If you had to obtain them, they're probably not published. By "registries," I think jmcgnh was referring to online registries where almost anyone can theoretically view them.

There's also the issue that such certificates would be primary sources, which do not establish notability.

My usual advice for writing articles:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. 17:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Ian.thomson (talk)

Thanks for the additional detailed information and suggestions. To clarify, the certificates were purchased from the actual state/county registries to support dates, locations, etc. This is fundamental biographical information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BallBearings (talk • contribs)

@BallBearings: Then they are not usable as sources for us. You really can't expect all of us to fly or drive down to the county in question to verify your sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

And please sign your edits by typing four of ~ at the end of your comments. David notMD (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't expect anyone to travel anywhere. What amuses me about all of this is that I can read any number of articles on the Wiki quoting dates and locations with not one mention of anything to validate them, yet when I have documents I'm told I can't quote them? I can make scans of them for proof. BallBearings (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallBearings: These WP policies may seem strange to an academic or other researcher, for whom different rules apply when they publish their work in books or journals. This sort of research, based on primary documents, is not allowed to be published on Wikipedia, for somewhat complicated reasons. Instead, such work must meet the standards to be published in its own professional outlets. Only then, can it be referred to on Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot be used to publish original research, as I mentioned earlier. More information that may be applicable to what you are trying to do is covered in the essay expert editors. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Flaws such as lack of citation in other articles does not justify adding content which does not meet Wikipedia's standards. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there!

I was editing a random page and discovered what appears to be opinion in this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Nzeribe#Background

It's at the very end of the background section. Specifically, the language is this:

Using the Ibrahim Babangida-supported ABN platform he campaigned for, and dubiously succeeded in the annulment of the fairest and freest presidential election in the history of Nigeria. He continued further his mission to legitimize the dictatorship of maximum ruler, General Sanni Abacha, which was resolutely resisted by the Nigerian people and the will of God.[5]

If I didn't want to delete all of it, but instead flag it for review with some code at the top, how would I go about doing this? Or, what is the recommended approach when encountering this kind of language? (Also there's a weird typo here, maybe "he" for "and")

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artlover404 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Artlover404. I boldly deleted those two sentences. Completely unacceptable editorialising in Wikipedia's voice using unencyclopedic language and on top of that largely plagiarised from the opinion piece given as a citation. I also found a source for the "as of" date for his personal wealth and added it. There are a series of inline tags and maintenance templates that can be used at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup in articles. But with something as glaring as that, you shouldn't worry about just fixing it. We'll see what happens. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Voceditenore! - Artlover404

Does it cost to publish a article or page in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:c5a1:4b30:e8f1:5290:3d7:2ed7 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does. Time and electricity. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

While Abelmoschus Esculentus is correct, I'll give you a more helpful answer. No, there is no money involved in creating an article in Wikipedia: it is a free, collaborative project. Some people choose to make donations to Wikipedia, but there is absolutely no connection between that and having an article published: none of the volunteer editors who keep the administrative side of Wikipedia going have any way of knowing who has contributed.

There are some people who take commissions to write Wikipedia articles for payment: some of them understand how Wikipedia works, and will explain to their clients that they cannot guarantee that the article will be accepted, and they will have no control over the contents afterwards; others are reckless or unscrupulous, and dishonestly represent that they can guarantee the result.

The fact that you are asking this question suggests to me that you may be considering create an article (or having one created) for promotional reasons. If this is the case, please give up the idea now, and go to another site. Wikipedia forbids promotion of any kind. This is not limited to commercial organisations: coming here to tell the world about your school, your charity, your NGO, your club, is regarded as promotional. If this is not what you were thinking of, my apologies,. --ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

why are my articles decline— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saud1991ali (talk • contribs) 16:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)‎

This must be about Draft:SH Knives Exporter. At the top you will see a pink "declined" box, which contains a blue panel giving a reason why it was declined. Maproom (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Saud1991ali. It appears that your Draft:SH Knives Exporter declined by an Articles for Creation reviewer named KJP1 because the company does not appear to be Wikipedia notable enough to support a stand-alone article per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Basically, only companies which have received significanct coverage in multiple independent reliable sources are considered notable enough to support a stand-alone article. So, what you need to do is look for coverage in major newspapers, magazines, etc. which shows the company to be notable per Wikipedia's standards, summarize the content you find in these sources in your own words and add it to the article, and then add supporting citations for this content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Why my post about Prof. H. B. Bohidar is being rejected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. H.B.Bohidar (talk • contribs) 16:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I assume this is about Draft:Prof. H. B. Bohidar. At the top you will see a pink "declined" box, which contains two blue panels giving the reasons why it was declined. Also, you appear to be trying to write about yourself, something which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Any advice on how to get one? We're real, with over 50,000 active customers, blah blah blah. I want to do this properly and honestly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:550:2:29::6:2 (talk • contribs) 2018-07-31T18:47:24 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I'm afraid you have a (very common) misunderstanding about Wikipedia. Nobody in the world - not one person, not one business - "has" a Wikipedia entry: it's not that sort of project. Wikipedia has five million articles about notable subjects: those that have already been written about in reliably published places by people who have no connection with the subject. If your business is notable (by Wikipedia's definition, which isn't the same as the normal meaning of the word) then we can have an article about your business. It will not belong to you, you will have no control over its contents, and very little of it should derive from things that you or the business say about yourselves. Please read your first article to understand these matters better. --ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Good Morning, I was just wondering if any of these sites I'm fixing to list are considered credible or not. If not,how can I determine which ones are? If it's based on Alexa ranking,how would I know if the site has fact checkers or if they allow anything? Am I supposed to look into their terms of service to find out or what? Please get back with me regarding this. I'm looking into hiring someone to write an article for me and they gave me these sites, not sure if they are reputable or not.

www.techiestuffs.com www.digitaledge.org www.connectioncafe.com www.technected.com www.techconnections.org www.naijatechguide.com southafricatoday.net techlogitic.net thedailynotes.com www.businesscomputingworld.co.uk www.thinkcomputers.org www.technology.org www.topdreamer.com www.thefutureofthings.com designbuzz.com bmmagazine.co.uk techmoran.com tenoblog.com axcessnews.com thetrentonline.com augustafreepress.com www.knox.villagesoup.com gbasibe.com www.centrinity.com www.business-opportunities.biz www.fashiongonerogue.com lerablog.org bitrebels.com www.theglobaldispatch.com augustafreepress.com www.tntmagazine.com thyblackman.com www.noobpreneur.com homebusinessmag.com stories.swns.com www.thelondoneconomic.com baltimorepostexaminer.com thecostaricanews.com 247hiphopnew.com futuresharks.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.39.205.106 (talk • contribs) 2018-07-31T16:51:07 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I'm not going to look through that long list. If you want to know whether a particular site is regarded as reliable, you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard; but be aware that whether a site is reliable or not depends to some degree on what information it is being used to back up.

Meanwhile, I would urge you not to hire someone to write an article for you: this tends to end in tears and frustration, and you will wonder what you have got for your money. Unless you are unusually altrustic, you are proposing to pay somebody to promote something you are concerned with on Wikipedia; but promotion of all kinds (commercial or not) is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. If the subject of the article is notable by Wikipedia's criteria, your agent will be able to create the article (thought they will be required by the terms of access to declare their paid status, and can expect their work to be reviewed very carefully by other editors: see WP:PAID). More to the point, they do not have the power to control what goes into the article either initially or subsequently; and nor do you. If the reliably published material about your subject is all favourable, well and good; but if some of it is not favourable, then, hard luck, that also should go into the article. If there is not enough independently written and published material, then no article will be accepted, however it is written: Wikipedia is basically uninterested in anything written or published by the subject of the article or somebody closely connected with them. --ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The assumption here is that you meant to ask about writing a Wikipedia article for you. Teahouse only addresses Wikipedia-related questions. David notMD (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yo, dawgs, I got the invite! Where's the tea at? I take two lumps of sugar in mine! Senator Begs-Ducks-For-Bread (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User page created today, and account already blocked for vandalism. Not a record, but pretty fast. David notMD (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there!

I've encountered some news articles I wanted to use for citations that have no author listed, and wonder how those should be attributed, or if the name fields should just be left empty.

Thanks! --Artlover404

Hello @Artlover404:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please sign your post with 4 tilde characters ~~~~ at the end. This will automatically add a correct signature with timestamp. Regarding your question: if the source doesn't state an author, you should omit these parameters aswell. Please make sure to provide as many other details as possible though in any case (for example the publishing company as "publisher" parameter, the name of the website as "website", and the date of the article as "date", etc.). See also Template:Cite news (or Template:Cite web for other web sources) for more details. GermanJoe (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @GermanJoe: -- can you code that tilde characters here in a post so I know what the code itself should look like? Many thanks. (Or is this it? Artlover404 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Artlover404)

@Artlover404:, that seemed to work :). The Wiki software will automatically replace ~~~~ with links to your userpages and a timestamp when you save the message. GermanJoe (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Artlover404:, welcome. There are a couple good pages to use as reference to assist you with citations, there are a couple templates that I find very useful. All you have to do is fill in the information. The one I use for citing news articles can be found at here, just use the one that says "To cite a news article with no credited author". Alternately if you are citing a web page that is not a news outlet, use the one here. It would be a good idea to read Citation tools and become familiar with how to reference and these links handy for when you need them. I hope this helps. Coryphantha Talk 18:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Coryphantha:! Thank you! Artlover404 (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Artlover404

Would someone be able to review this decision: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects § Redirect request: Sexual gatekeepers, Gatekeeper of sex, Gatekeepers of sex? Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The redirect is currently nominated for deletion here, so if you take umbrage with it, that would be the place to discuss it. If consensus forms that the redirect is unnecessary/inaccurate, it will be removed. Consider that a type of review. If you wish to discuss the decision further, I would recommend doing so at the talk page, or the RfD mentioned above. Courtesy ping for The Duke of Nonsense and Jonesycleomerc, who created and nominated the redirect respectively. - Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC).

hey guys i need someone who loves to type help me make a wiki bout me i dont know how and im working on my albums right now so its hard im a up coming emo rapper named Icynexstar. if you can help please contact me at my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icynexstar (talk • contribs) 15:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed your email from your request, and instead directed users to your talk page, for privacy reasons. In relation to your query, I am afraid that you are likely out of luck. You appear to have a common misunderstanding of Wikipedia. We don't write "wikis" about people who ask for one. We write encyclopedic articles about subjects which satisfy the notability guidelines, using citations from reliable sources. A google search shows that you don't satisfy our threshold for notability, as your web presence is minimal beyond self-created Genius pages. Moreover, having you have a conflict of interest in editing matters related to yourself and your corpus of work, and shouldn't seek an autobiography. Besides, an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. As such, alas, an article about you is not a possibility in the foreseeable future. However, with improved penmanship and grammar, and perusal of our pillars, you could become a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, and I urge you to attempt to do so. Hope this helps, and don't hesitate to ask any further questions, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have edited the article about women in Poland and I need some feedback if it looks correct as well as some help with developing and organizing certain sections. --Humansapiens (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to figure out why the notes on this page do not show up when you hover over them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ikjbagl/Translation:_Dame_Sirith

I formatted them the same as I formatted the notes on this page, where they all work properly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Utilis_Coquinario

I have looked through several wiki guides and have not been able to find out why my notes won't pop up. Ikjbagl (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

They're appearing for me, Ikjbagl. Nice project, but I'm not sure Wikipedia is the right place for it. Do you realise that by posting that on your user page you have already granted an irrevocable licence that allows anybody to reuse it in any way and for any purpose? --ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

ColinFine I'm fine with it being a public domain translation, I'm just an amateur hobbyist. Besides, by it being published on Wikipedia, there will always be proof that I created it! ;) Ikjbagl (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC) Ikjbagl (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Everyone,

Would you be able to guide me how to close my secondary account which is linked to my primary account (Goodtiming8871) on my user page? I was unable to find the request page for closing the old secondary account on Wikipedia. I created the new secondary account today which is Goodtiming1788 as per the kind recommendation by another user in Wikipedia. I created the new subsidiary account: Goodtiming1788 as it is a comparable name to my primary account Goodtiming8871 Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no way to close an account on Wikipedia, due to the requirements of attribution in our copyright license. If you no longer want it, just stop using it. John from Idegon (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind advice. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Right now I can't see any reference tooltips popping up on my userpage / subpages, and I think it's because this page doesn't include 'User' in [ , 'Project', 'Help', 'Draft' ]. I would like to add user there so I can see reference tooltips on my userpages, but I assume there is a reason why it is not there already, so the admins will not change it for everyone. Is there a way to change it for just me, so I can see reference tooltips on my pages? Ikjbagl (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ikjbagl: Try copying the entire code of MediaWiki:Gadget-ReferenceTooltips.js to your User:Ikjbagl/common.js and change that line to include the user namespace. I believe this may work. Let me know if it doesn't. Zingarese talk · contribs 01:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese: YES!!! Thank you, exactly what I was looking for! Ikjbagl (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I’m Stephanie, an English student at AUM. I’ll be applying to grad school soon for my MFA and I joined Wikipedia to see if I can get involved in the academic community and hopefully contribute to articles in English literature (but I guess that’s just a reiteration of my user page). I wasnt sure where I should go to reach out for guidance on how to get started properly until I stumbled across the teahouse. So I guess, yeah, I’m here asking if anyone can point me in the right direction. Thanks! - Steph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steph at AUM (talk • contribs) 01:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Steph at AUM. Wikipedia is bascially a collaborative editing project in which anyone anywhere in the world who is interested in helping to improve things and is capable of doing so in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines can participate. Academics, etc. are also welcome to participate, but it's not a project really limited to only the academic community. If you want to find out some more about what you can do, take a look at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia for some general info. i will also add a welcome template to your user talk page which also contains some general information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks Marchjuly! I hope you don’t mind a couple other questions... I notice some editors have nicely formatted labels on their user pages and I was wondering where I can find those? And I see that you made a link to my username when you responded... how do I do that? Sorry to be a bother, I’m still learning :/ Thanks! Steph at AUM (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Steph at AUM, the labels are known as "userboxes", and a list of them (by topic) can be found here. There are a number of ways to link to someone's username, but Marchjuly and I used a template; we wrote "{{u|Steph at AUM}}", which produces the link at the beginning of this message. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help. Is there anyone else at AUM here?? Steph at AUM (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You can try checking for your school here, but there's probably not a category subpage for every school which exists. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)