This user is new to Wikipedia. Please assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful, and polite while they become accustomed to Wikipedia and its intricacies.

Welcome to Wikipedia! Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.

• Main Introduction — What is Wikipedia?
• The Five Pillars — What are the principles behind Wikipedia?
• Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers — A good starting point.
• Quick Introductions to:

• Policies and guidelines — How does Wikipedia actually work?
• Talk pages — How do I communicate in Wikipedia?
• Referencing — How do I add sources to articles?
• Uploading images — How do I add and use images?
• Navigating Wikipedia — How do I find my way around?

• What Wikipedia is not - even though everyone can edit it, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia.

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the many help pages.

• Google: Wikipedia is very well indexed by Google. Searching for a term, even about an editing question, followed by "wiki" or "wikipedia" usually pulls up what you need.

Where next?

• If you wish to express an opinion or make a comment, Where to ask questions will point you in the correct direction.
• If you would like to edit an article, the Basic tutorial will show you how, and How to help will give you some ideas for things to edit.
• If you would like to create a new article, Starting an article will explain how to create a new page, with tips for success and a link to Wikipedia's Article Wizard, which can guide you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
• For more support and some friendly contacts to get you started, the Editors' Welcome page or the Wikipedia:Teahouse page could be your next stop!

See also

• Help:Starting editing

Good luck and happy editing.```Buster Seven Talk 22:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to China 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. Thanks! JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Msundqvist, you appear to be on a blitz against long paragraphs. Now, if you are really a new editor, and not an old editor under a new name, you might need to know a few things about how Wikipedia works.

There are people on Wikipedia whose commitment is to policing the Manual of Style. One of the things that they police is some arbitrary rule that says that an Introduction ought not have too many paragraphs. So if you make five out of four, you have created a problem.

Also, in the case of Leonardo da Vinci, the intro uses a number of words that the style police would dearly love to edit out. The Manual of Style discourages the use of words like "famous" and "talented". If you go back to the article, you will see that both those words have been used, and trust me, they have been subject to a long battle! Please do not split the quote from Helen Gardner away from the sentence that goes before it. It is only the judiciously placed quotations and the very long string of oddly located references that hold the statements in place. You see, the style police know that "talented" and "famous" are forbidden words and cannot understand why it is necessary to say "most diversely talented" about Leonardo and "most famous" about the Mona Lisa.

The large generic articles, and articles of major importance are generally watched by a lot of people, often 60-80 and in the case of Leonardo, over 1,000. Any change gets spotted quickly. It means too that the articles are often very stable, not having had any real change (apart from vandalism) for several years unless new research brings something to light. There are other old generic articles that are hopelessly badly composed and written, so that major contributors like me just take one look and change page because the job is overwhelming. I would urge you to focus your attention on poor articles rather than cruising around chopping up paragraphs in articles that already work well.

Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AJM's advice to new editors

• Look at the article to see how it is laid out. The Table of Contents is the best place to start.
• Read the article to see if what you want to add or remove is appropriate, necessary, or adds value.
• Search for the right place to put it.
• Check Use the "Show Preview" to make sure that what you have done is appropriate and correct.
• Discuss any change about which you are uncertain, by placing your proposed text, or just a suggestion, on the talk page. Someone who watches the article will usually answer in a day or so. You can monitor this by clicking the watch tag at the top of the page.
• Be aware
  • that an addition inserted between two sentences or paragraphs that are linked in meaning can turn the existent paragraphs into nonsense.
  • that a lengthy addition or the creation of a new sub-section can add inappropriate weight to just one aspect of a topic.

When adding images

• Look to see if the subject of your image is already covered. Don't duplicate subject matter already present. Don't delete a picture just to put in your own, unless your picture is demonstrably better for the purpose. The caption and nearby text will help you decide this.
• Search through the text to find the right place for your image. If you wish it to appear adjacent to a particular body of text, then place it above the text, not at the end of it.
• Look to see how the pictures are formatted. If they are all small thumbnails, do not size your picture at 300 px. The pictures in the article may have been carefully selected to follow a certain visual style e.g. every picture may be horizontal, because of restricted space; every picture might be taken from a certain source, so they all match. Make sure your picture looks appropriate in the context of the article.
• Read the captions of existent pictures, to see how yours should fit in.
• Check the formatting, placement, context and caption before you leave the page by using the Show preview function, and again after saving.
• Discuss If your picture seems to fill a real identifiable need in the article, but doesn't fit well, because of formatting or some other constraint, then put it on the talk page and discuss, before adding.
• Be aware that adding a picture may substantially change the layout of the article. Your addition may push another picture out of its relevant section or cause some other formatting problem.
• Edit before adding. Some pictures will look much better, or fit an article more appropriately if they are cropped to show the relevant subject.

The article Lily rothman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journalist. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Larry Page, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. --McGeddon (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Larry Page page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --McGeddon (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Larry Page, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billion. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Larry Page, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages UI and Servers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Larry Page you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cd5464 -- Cd5464 (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Larry Page you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Larry Page for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cd5464 -- Cd5464 (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for leaving a message on my talk page saying you've addressed the issue with the cleanup banners on this page. I have just very quickly skimmed through it and I think the language needs a fair amount of improvement to get it to read as I'd expect an article with GA status to. Rather than keep renominating I thinking nominating this for Wikipedia:Peer_review might be sensible just to iron out these minor problems to allow a more indepth GA review to happen later. -- Cd5464 (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise leaving the GA nomination for the moment @Msundqvist: There is still a fair amount of work left. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Larry Page, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lag time. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Msundqvist: I am by no means a Wiki superstar, but I can see that you are improving through the best way possible—continuing work and research, and persistence. It is excellent to bear witness to, and I look forward to future collaborative work on this encyclopedic resource! Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Msundqvist,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Msundqvist. I'm sorry to say, but I've reverted your edits at Gautama Buddha. Although the quotes you've added are nice (I love the account of the young Gautama watching his father plowing), they're WP:UNDUE for an encyclopedic article. Besides, taking those accounts as historical accounts is an interpretation, which we have to leave to the scholars (personally, I think that the "plowing-account" is too nice. It deviates from the style of most sutras, being closer to a narrative than to a pointy list. And if this account was really from the Buddha, then it's weird that this "pericope" is used only one time). Vetter, Gombrich, and Bronkhorst, to name a few, have strong doubts about the historical accuracy of those accounts. The enlightenment-account is probably highly fabricated; Gautama's enlightenment "experience" may have been 'no more' than the realisation that dhyana isn an effective means to still the mind. See Enlightenment in Buddhism#Buddha's awakening for more info on this. See also:

• Vetter, Tilmann (1988), The Ideas and Meditative Practices of Early Buddhism, BRILL, ISBN 90-04-08959-4
• Bronkhorst, Johannes (1993), The Two Traditions Of Meditation In Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass Publ.
• Gombrich, Richard F. (1997), How Buddhism Began. The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
• Gombrich, Richard (2009), What the Buddha Thought, Equinox

Vetter can easily be found as a pdf; Gombrich and Bronkhorst too. If you've got questions on this, please contact me. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I'm reading it again, I notice the following:

"I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then following on that memory came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.'"

Where-after he engages in meditation, sees his past lives etc, discovers the four noble truths, which describe the way which leads to liberation, and with discovering this path he is liberated! As Bronkhorst and other shave noticed: this is a contradiction, since he discovers how to be liberated, but himself is liberated by this discovery! The childhood-memory only adds to the contradiction, since it states that the recollection of that memory already showed him the way to liberation, namely the practice of dhyana,while MN 26 says that he only realized this way after the recollection of the past lives etc. It also shows the friction between two "ways" to liberation, namely dhyana and insight (bodhi, prajna). The childhood-memory emphasizes dhyana, while the Maha Saccaka Sutra (MN36) emphasizes insight. It's a pity, but "we" Buddhists don't have perfect answers, or narratives, either. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Larry Page you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Larry Page for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of StudiesWorld -- StudiesWorld (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Msundqvist. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]