Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.
A tag has been placed on File:Gordon Hayward.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Chris!c/t02:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to June 5, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Arcandam (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Olive tree branchThank you for pointing out to me, the error of my ways. and please accept my apology. I am sorry. You are correct in your revision/s. Also, please discount the nasty-sounding automatic template above. It is a good job that you watch your edits – unlike many editors here on Wikipedia – and were able to let me know straight away.
Mistakes like this one can all too easily occur whilst editing and looking after Wikipedia. However, as long as they are met with good temper and a sense of humour, there is no lasting harm, in my opinion.
I know that you have corrected my revision. You are on My watchlist, so I will be aware of any reply here on this page in the future. DeMarre Carroll is quite a guy, isn't he? Born in Lake Wales too. Must be an omen!
Thank you for apologizing. I understand that some editors don't watch their edits, and it can go a little overboard ( like vandalism). It is never too late to correct yourself. I'm glad you did... I would be too embarassed about apologizing when I make a HUGE mistake, especially on Wikipedia (thankfully, it hasn't happened yet).
Hello! TheBestZebra,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. They really should do something to Igloo - it does not make the right choices. The main thing is to just look at the edits first, and decide if it's vandalism or not. Igloo us consistent, but not always right (as in this case). TheBestZebra21:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to the pages you have edited does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. All the mistakes, anger, frustration and apologies could have been avoided had you used a meaningful edit summary. I admit that you are new and still learning so thats perfectly ok. Please take care in your future edits. Thanks! ÐℬigXЯaɣ23:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats ok, I am glad that you have understood the importance of edit summary (although I would call it the hard way ). I saw your edit summary "I edited the statistics of Willie Green (graphs)" although its correct but its advisable to exactly summarize what you have done "removed bold font" would have been a precise one. You will learn with experience, so thats ok. Try spending few minutes at the Wikipedia:Tutorial They will be quite helpful to you. Feel free to come to my page for any advice/suggestion etc cheers --ÐℬigXЯaɣ23:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're really spending a lot of time with edit summaries. :) It's certainly not wrong to provide so much info, but to save you some work, I think something simple like "updating stats" would suffice. Even without any edit summary, it should be clear to most observers what you are doing. Remember, the people who reverted you were in the wrong, not you. They acted hastily (especially since NBA statistics are very easy to check).
Also, I disagree with the user above, who says you should write "removed bold font". Something like that should be self-evident. The real value of an edit summary is to explain why you are doing what you're doing. Zagalejo^^^00:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say above thatEven without any edit summary, it should be clear to most observers what you are doing. Remember, the people who reverted you were in the wrong, not you. They acted hastily (especially since NBA statistics are very easy to check). I would like to point out that I had not reverted TheBestZebra on the first place, but yes seeing the discussion above, i was trying to tell TheBestZebra the use of edit summary. I dont think your above statement is reasonable enough, and this makes me assume that you have either not used vandal fighting tools or are not familiar with the most of them. See most of the anti vandal tools just show you just the difference between the old version and the new version (diff screen) along with the edit summary. and it becomes the responsibility of the reviewer (using the tool) to decide if its correct or not. And i hope you are aware that there are lot of users out there who love or hate various sports teams out there, and often give vent to their anger/love by inflating / deflating the stats. And i must tell you that this is very very frequent here on wiki where any one even unregistered users can edit. while vandals dont bother to provide edit summaries, the genuine users know their importance and do so. The presence of summary helps the reviewer in knowing correctly what to do. This does not mean all the edits without edit summaries are wrong and should be reverted, certainly i do not mean that all the edits with an edit summary are genuine. but this certainly helps to make a better decision. now about the second part that NBA stats are very easy to check . I agree with this but please also understand that its not very easy for the editors using the vandal fighting tools to verify such statistics, they rather leave the edit for editors like you to check it, that too happens if you suspect something fishy. hope i have succeded to convey my thoughts, I will be glad to answer any furthur questions on this discussion. Thanks and regards--ÐℬigXЯaɣ05:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that vandals often screw up sports statistics. Believe me, I've reverted many such edits over the years. (Although such vandals will rarely go through the effort of building entire table rows; they'll usually just mess around with the numbers that are already there.)
If I may explain myself: I admire the work that vandal fighters do, and I recognize that everyone makes mistakes. But I also think it's important not to scare off new users, especially those who show promise (and a willingness to take on a lot of work). As someone who mainly works with basketball articles, I really don't want to see someone like TheBestZebra leave in frustration. We need all the help we can get. That's why I'm going to take "his side" in this case. Zagalejo^^^06:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this is not an issue of taking sides, I am not supporting the one who reverted TheBestZebra neither i am scolding TheBestZebra. All I am trying to do is to highlight the importance of edit summary which is already a part of the newbies tutorial. Secondly i certainly dont agree with the claim above that users like TheBestZebra would leave in frustration due to my above comment (which is infact a standard template for users not using edit summary). please see Template:Uw-editsummary if you still have doubts on me.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ06:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Writing as an editor, who can claim a one hundred per cent Edit summary performance, in this instance, I find myself supporting TheBestZebra and Zagalejo.
Particularly, as I have done a lot of work on Rugby Union articles, but shied away from the statistic tables. TheBestZebra deserves all the encouragement that could be given. An editor working so conscientiously must be encouraged. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
POSTSCRIPT: May I refer you, Dbigxray, to the section immediately below this one which was posted last week. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what to say. I really don't. I barely have any idea of what this argument is about. I'm just a 10-year old! I'm just going to do what I keep doing, and I'll assume it's fine -- if I'm doing something wrong, please tell me. TheBestZebra21:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to worry. Keep up the good work! Remember, this is your page, and you are free to remove anything recorded here, if you want to. (Actually, it is always available there in the View history, should you wish to refer back to anything) With kind wishes, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing OK! My main point was that you shouldn't think you have to write such long edit summaries. Shorter edit summaries are OK, too. But you can continue doing whatever you want to do. A detailed edit summary is definitely a good thing; I'm just trying to save you some work.
Thanks for helping me. So I will keep doing what I'm doing, and it looks like both of you are saying the same thing. By the way, I would rather keep all of this (I don't know why, I just want to), referring Gareth Griffith-Jones's comment. And thanks for the compliment, Zagalejo - sometimes 10-year olds can do stuff you don't think they can. To tell the truth, what I'm doing is pretty easy -- I think the only hard thing I have done was to add that graph of Wilt Chamberlain's stats. Thanks again, TheBestZebra12:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Thank you for replying so courteously. The 'Template ' that I am referring to is under the Section header May 9 2012, higher up this page. It, and many others, are produced automatically when some editors revert other users. I prefer to modify/personalise them as appropriate, as I had done with yours, when I consider the standard wording too harsh.
I've seen you around lately and I've noticed you're new and not that experienced. In case nobody's said it before, lots of people new to Wikipedia get adopted by a mentor so they can learn from an experienced editor. The relevant page is here. Happy editing! AndieM(Am I behaving?)11:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work (and it shouldn't work) because if it's already on the page that's it's being linked to, it turns bold, and does not work as a link. Unless I'm getting something wrong. For example, on NBA player's biographies, there's always a template on the bottom that shows the persons current team and the people on that team (including him). Everyone has a link, except for that one player who's page you're already on - if I posted on other people's pages, I would make a link to my talk page. But here, it wouldn't work. TheBestZebra
Oh yeah, I forgot about that! Also, just saying that you usually sign your name with '--', this time I'm guessing you accidentally pressed shift and it came up like '__'. Just saying, not a big thing. TheBestZebra02:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ... You are right. I noticed after clicking on Save page, but it was eleven o' clock here in the UK and I still had to walk my dog before retiring.
I'm in the Central Time Zone (of the US), which I think is UTC -6. So when it was 11:00 where you live, it was about 6 o'clock here. TheBestZebra20:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not replying, I've had a very busy weekend, because I went to a swim meet on Friday, Saturday, and I'm going to one today, too. One thing is for sure: it isn't half past eleven anymore (wait, that rhymes)! TheBestZebra13:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Swimming as in swim meets -- my favorite stroke is freestyle, I have the 2nd best time in the state (for people aged 10 & Under) in the 100 Freestyle. Of course, I occasionally swim in a lake, but only in the summer. TheBestZebra 2:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Vadim Basin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ridernyc (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent contributions, such as Vadim Basin. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, with less risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited 2008 NBA Playoffs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Johnson (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.
Hello TheBestZebra. It has now been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Gary Sonders.
If you no longer want this submission, it will shortly be deleted. However, if you wish to keep it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gary Sonders}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will place the undeleted submission in your user space.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to June 5, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Arcandam (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
). I saw your edit summary "I edited the statistics of Willie Green (graphs)" although its correct but its advisable to exactly summarize what you have done "removed bold font" would have been a precise one. You will learn with experience, so thats ok. Try spending few minutes at the Wikipedia:Tutorial They will be quite helpful to you. Feel free to come to my page for any advice/suggestion etc cheers -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
