Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.
Hello, Neplota, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
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.
Hi there, I see you are making changes to the introduction of the Jesus article. The topic of your edit has already been discussed extensively at Talk:Jesus/Archive 134. May I advise you to please engage in discussion and reach a consensus before reverting other users edits or your contributions may be viewed as edit warring. Thanks, and have a good night.--Thebighomie123 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that your edits to Islam in Mozambique (here) includes text that is not mentioned in the sources. For example, while this source here by Deutsche Welledoes mention the presence of slave traders in East Africa, it makes no claim that they were one of the two factors involved with spreading Islam in Mozambique (it also doesn't even name the country). Your second source seems not to work and I therefore can't verify it. The last source which is a book, is about Kenya, not Mozambique. You also removed this existing source which is an academic article written by a Islamicist that specializes in East African Islam. I also plan to be place more academic sources. This source is more appropriate and actually backs what the text says. Be aware that I will likely revert your edit for the reasons cited. If I'm missing something here, please don't hesitate to reply. Thank you. SlackingViceroy (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jesus. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Both in my edit comment, and on the talk page discussion I pointed to the relevant guideline, MOS:OPEN, which explains the strict need for neutrality in the opening paragraph. Asserting that Jesus is a Christian figure and nothing else in that same opening paragraph is the opposite of neutral: it is a clearly biased point of view. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly justify the changes you are making on the relevant article's talk page, not here. I have already given a detailed response there. RegardsNeplota (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I’m sorry I didn’t see a good reason why you deleted the edits previously. The content were already there previously, it has some sources and references too. It was just revised by another user to make it in the first opening. Please don’t do that again without providing a good reason. Thank you. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.
I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.
I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk)18:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cerebellum was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Religion in Madagascar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Religion in Madagascar, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Neplota!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Cerebellum (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, once again, I see you are making changes to the introduction of the Jesus article. The topic of your edit has already been discussed extensively at Talk:Jesus/Archive 134. May I advise you to please engage in discussion and reach a consensus before reverting other users edits or your contributions may be viewed as edit warring. Thebighomie123 (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has. But it's not the version that you are edit warring to change to. Try that nonsense again and I foresee that you won't be here long. DeCausa (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neplota, please take this as the friendliest possible warning that you are in danger of violating WP:3RR. One more revert of any kind on Jesus within 20ish hours will have consequences. I see that you added a post to Talk:Jesus. As I do not currently see consensus for the 16-day-old edits that are now being contested-only a termination of discussion-please continue that discussion without further attempts to restore your edits, should they be removed again. An RFC would probably be the smartest, least time consuming option. See also WP:CON, especially WP:NOCON as well as WP:STABLE, which outline the difference between consensus and a discussion just ending, and why the concept of a "stable version" should not be referred to in this present discussion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Jesus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Puerto Rico, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. you have recently modified Kiribati by adding info that wasn’t exactly the same of the 2020 Census (files published June 2022), so I have reverted it and stated exactly what is written in the source. sorry for that and thanks again. Arorae (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is my user page Regarding article on relegon in Australia, comment: Irish Catholics transported to Australia via the English criminal justice system, implies these were common criminals, where as most of these transportations were due to political activity such as the 1798 rebellions and later anti English political actions and not common criminal or treasonable acts as viewed by the English administration. This should be highlighted. 109.78.5.200 (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Kiribati shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Arorae (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
--Arorae (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Neplota. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Religion in Madagascar, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, I'm Dr.Pinsky. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Islam in Nicaragua, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jesus. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Both in my edit comment, and on the talk page discussion I pointed to the relevant guideline, MOS:OPEN, which explains the strict need for neutrality in the opening paragraph. Asserting that Jesus is a Christian figure and nothing else in that same opening paragraph is the opposite of neutral: it is a clearly biased point of view. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Moxy-
16:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
