Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 450

This is an current talk page .

I wanted to contribute to an article, and tried to restore productive content from other editors recently removed by an old edit-warrior. Reviewed page history, and tried filing it on a noticeboard. Did I do it correctly? JustAGal2 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I've just taken a quick look. I assume you're talking about

assume good faith

, but many editors will take that as you trying to hide the changes you're making, and that makes it much harder to assume good faith. Further, I don't understand why you're removing the content – it looks (at a very quick glance) to be relevant and well sourced.

I'd suggest that, even after the page protection has expired, you try discussing any content you propose to remove on the article talk page before actually removing it, and if/when you do remove content, you explain why you're doing it in the edit summary. That's much less likely to result in further edit warring.

—me_and 13:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. All I did in actuality was "re-add" earlier edits that were removed by the user I reported, before I continued to edit. Was I wrong to restore something also sourced, that was removed falsely by someone else in the prior edits? I put those diffs in the report. I guess I should have been more clear about what I was restoring, or "adding"? JustAGal2 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this edit, for example, which has an edit summary of "re-adding awards", you added a paragraph starting "Recently, in 2015, Clemson has had a Heisman Trophy finalist...", but also removed a significant chunk of text from the "Danny Ford era (1978–1989)" section, starting with "This sanction was enforced...". I believe that's what they're complaining about in this edit summary.

When you say all you did was "re-add earlier edits", do you mean you didn't mean to remove that content? As I said above, removing content without noting it in the edit summary looks duplicitous, even if it wasn't intended to be.

—me_and 11:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, what does one do when a non-admin user other than the user who made a page removes CSD tags without addressing the issue with the page? Should this be discussed first, or should the tag(s) be reinstated, and it be discussed afterwards? Thanks,

Welcome back to the Teahouse,

Rubbish computer. Speedy deletion is a process for uncontroversial deletions. If a CSD tag is removed by someone other than the creator, then the matter is clearly not uncontroversial. There should be a deletion debate. Although improving the article is wise and advisable, it is not mandatory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

11:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@

HALP!: I dropped the bass?

) 12:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

please help editing the article at the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenal_Literature:_A_Global_Journal_Devoted_to_Language_and_Literature Prinshukr (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

What kind of help?

Looking at the article, I see that

reliable sourcing standards, and nothing affiliated with the journal can be used to demonstrate that the journal is noteworthy. Ian.thomson (talk

) 11:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@

HALP!: I dropped the bass?

) 12:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, you kindly offered to lend a hand as I'm totally new at this. I'm trying to submit an entry about The Vice-Dean of Chester Cathedral and was told he isn't notable enough. He is a very senior priest and reverend canon within the C of E, and the Dean, already has an entry. What am I doing wrong? Many thanks.DevaWerburgh (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @

WP:NOTABILITY. Basically, it all depends on being able to provide in-depth coverage of the subject in several independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia articles live or die on the strength of their references, so you should start by collecting articles about him in newspapers, magazines and journals, books written about him, television and radio coverage (where it is verifiable) etc.--Gronk Oz (talk

) 15:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Convenience link Draft:Peter Howell-Jones

Hello DevaWerburgh - As it clearly states in the reason for refusal"

"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule"

So far, you have cited no references whatsoever, you have added an external link to [http:www.chestercathedral.com], but that, clearly, is not "independent of the subject"
Which

the golden rule and there cannot be a Wikipedia article about him - Arjayay (talk

) 15:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed User:Ashwinbhajan/sandbox and declined it as lacking in adequate references. One of the references is the company’s own, and the other two didn’t appear relevant. I also put a copy-edit tag on the article. I now have a malformed comment on my talk page from User: Ashwinbhajan. It doesn't ask anything specific, but I assume that he or she meant to ask why the sandbox was declined. Can some other experienced editor review the sandbox and either explain to its author why it needs improvement, or explain to me why I should have accepted it? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A little bit of history: I created a page for an individual known as Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari, however as I didn't want to forget my username for this project, I inappropriately used a username that connected me to the subject. I even admit this in a conversation with an administrator when using the ahmedsaad.ihsaninstitute username. Anyway, the account has been rightly deleted

I still feel there should be an article on this chap so I have re-written it (previous attempts used too many references from the chaps website). Please let me know what you think. I am trying not to make it promotional, however I feel there needs to be an article on him due to his media appearances and influence in combating extremism. I have also been made aware that I have used rotting links, however I am trying to reference the BBC's program called 'Doha Debates' which Ahmed Saad appeared on, however the link is dead, and the only refereces that seem available are from you tube. Shall I just stick to the you tube links when citing the doha debates?

Feel free to give me any other advice.

Thank you for your time. Please also see the logs under the blocked username ahmedsaad.ihsaninstitute Imran 108 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add, should the administrators become satified with the validity of the article, could you please offer any advice in suggesting how the article can appear among the top hits on google? If i type 'ahmed saad al azhari' in google, there is a load of stuff om him, however it all seems promotional, therefore I was hoping that a well referenced, unbiased article would be needed among those hits.

Also, I was thinking on adding a picture - can you direct me to some instructions where I can add a picture of him?

thank youImran 108 (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Re your Google and image questions: we really aren't concerned with Google rankings, we are here to build an encyclopedia.

• If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable
  file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy
  .
• If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our
  picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk
  ) 01:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Imran 108: in answer to your question about YouTube: It is sometimes acceptable to link to a YouTube video, but only in limited circumstances:

• Only if it is clear that the video in question does not contravene copyright. Many videos on YouTube are clearly copyright violations, and Wikipedia articles may not link to them. It looks to me as if "The Doha Debates" Channel on YouTube is an official channel for them, and so the videos are authorised by the copyright holders; but I couldn't find a clear statement to that effect. If you can show that they are authorised, then it is permissible to link to them.
• Assuming that the copyright question is satisfactorily answered, then there is the question of how you are going to link to the video. The use of external links in articles is quite limited, except for links to sources for references.
• It is permissible to cite an interview, but please be aware that that is a
  notability
  .

Finally, I acknowledge that you say that you are trying not to make it too promotional; but asking about Google rankings suggests to me that you are here to tell the world about Al-Azhari. That is what "promotion" means. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about anything or anybody: it is here to summarise the telling-the-world that has already been done about a subject by people unconnected with the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at the talk page of Noad Lahat? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noad_Lahat I asked the question and was about to make the change myself, but then I checked the page history and found there has been a low intensity edit war going on. Noad Lahat's location of birth is "Alfei Menashe, West Bank" (a settlement that is), but is listed as "Alfei Menashe, Israel". Can someone solve this? Thanks in advance! ImTheIP (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ImTheIP. Please be aware that the Arbitration Committee has imposed discretionary sanctions on all editing pertaining to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and anyone who engages in edit warring concerning such matters risks being blocked. Regarding the specific issue, I think that the precedent set at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem should be followed. Jerusalem is obviously much larger than Alfei Menashe, but neither should be described in the infobox as being part of Israel, Palestine or the West Bank. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

But Jerusalem straddles the border of the West Bank and Israel. Alfei Menashe is entirely within it. The page for Alfei Menashe says itself that it is in the West Bank, it is just Noad Lahat's page that is wrong. All media sources I've found about the fighet says he is from the West Bank: http://www.timesofisrael.com/mma-fighter-invokes-shoah-after-win/, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Noad_Lahat.html, http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/72445/israeli-ultimate-fighter-leaves-san-jose-for-gaza-operation/ Also because I've started a discussion on the talk page and no one has been willing to refute my arguments, doesn't that mean I am allowed to change the text? ImTheIP (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok so I'm obviously new to this Wikipedia thing because I'm not even sure how to reply to my own thread. I'm wanting to either create a Wikipedia page on "Effects of microbeads on Canadian lakes and environment," and I've been told it would be better to add to the "Microbead" page which already exists. I have written this paper myself for school, but it is encyclopedic and formal with all the requirements of a proper Wikipedia page. The information includes onlyl Canadian examples and research, which is why I thought it should be its own stub. It also includes the Federal and Provincial solutions and proposals to solving the problems of microbeads (all properly cited, of course). Should I just try and create this as a new Wikipedia stub/page and they will put it onto the already existing "microbead" page if they feel it should not be its own page, or is there a way I can try to just add my information to the already existing page? Thanks to all whole reply :) Aidannoval (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aidannoval. You asked a very similar question earlier, and I am not sure if I can say much new. It is wise in most cases for a new editor to spend some time editing existing articles rather than beginning new articles, because it is very difficult (though not impossible) for a very new editor to create a new article successfully.

The first question that comes to mind is whether or not this is really a discrete topic worthy of a separate article. Is the microbead problem in Canadian lakes significantly different from that in American lakes in adjoining states along the US - Canadian border? If not, have you just selected information about Canadian lakes and excluded similar information about lakes in other countries? If so, your article is probably

stub

. In 2016, we should be striving to write articles that are far better than stubs.

I looked at your edit history and see no edits to a sandbox or a draft article. I am assuming that you are working on this possible article off Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that this is a collaborative project. If there was a draft somewhere here on Wikipedia, I could offer you far more specific advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

To reply as part of the original thread you started, Aidannoval, scroll down to its heading, #Is my topic okay to go on Wikipedia? and click the "edit" button next to that heading. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

how would I add a significant but short addition to an article. Specifically the article on the song,"happy days are here again"'was used in 1932 asa campaign son by both FDR and Adolph Hitler. In the movie,"Triumph of the Will' Hitler and his entourage are shown singing the song on an airplane during his largely air born 1932 Nazi party campaign tour. If nothing else this seems an ironic coincidence. Tom Mulroy174.102.159.196 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Post this information on

reliable source. It is possible that the movie itself is a source, but the requirements to cite a movie are more detailed than what you would usually have.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions

 • 22:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Help please! I need to make a disambiguation page with the title "Trampolene" so that people searching for the band Trampolene can be directed to "Trampolene_(Band)" instead of "Trampolene" a song by Julian Cope, which they are named after. I have read articles about how to write the page but please can someone explain how I would actually start the page and redirect the song so that searches don't automatically go there. Stripeyjane (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stripeyjane. We actually already have a disambiguation page for trampolines, at Trampoline (disambiguation). Does that do what you were looking for? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: No, they're talking about Trampolene (the song) and Trampolene (band)- they want Trampolene (band) moved to Trampolene I think (or Trampolene to be a disambiguation page for the song & the band).

Personally I think the best thing to do is move Trampolene to Trampolene (song), redirect Trampolene to Trampoline (disambiguation), and add Trampolene (band) to Trampoline (disambiguation). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No! It's Trampolene spelt "Trampolene"! It's 1) a band 2) a song - both spelt that way - not the bouncy thing!! Thanks for your reply though Stripeyjane (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Since both listings are variant spellings of a word that has multiple meanings, and one is already on the disambiguation page, I will add the other one to the Trampoline (disambiguation) page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, and someone may object, I've created Trampolene (disambiguation) as a redirect for a non-implausible misspelling. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Joseph2302's idea. Trampolene as a misspelling of trampoline may even by the primary topic and its redirect should be pointed directly to Trampoline but I think pointing it at the DAB page is a good compromise. For the moment, I've added a hatnote to the article on the song capturing the misspelling and the band, but that would have to change if this was implemented.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, even if it's really confusing with the spelling. As long as people searching for the band page can get to it!! Stripeyjane (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to know if authors get written a biography in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.35.7.27 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Only if they are

WP:AUTHOR for a subject-specific guideline on notability of authors (though I personally believe all the subject specific guidelines should be deleted). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 23:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is One Direction, the reference is #105. It looks like the reference should link to a page devoted to an event; instead it links to a jewelry broker's site.

Thank you for your help! Laatu (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The URL in question is http://www.1dday.com/ which is supposed to link to a site about "1 D Day" - a day dedicated to One Direction fans - but instead is about a jeweller. I would be tempted just to delete the offending reference, since there is already another reference to support that statement.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added an archive link. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you David Biddulph, that is very helpful. For future reference & to help me learn how things work, IF an archived page for that reference were not available, what would the correct procedure be...delete that reference? add a flag (and if so, which one)? other?

Laatu (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Link rot tells you what to do, including where to place the {{dead link}} tag if necessary. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That's very helpful. Thank you ! Laatu (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I am writing an article on an ancient healing method that is very effective and verifiable through standard medical reports. However there is not much in terms of published information available on the subject. There are however medical reports of practitioners that corroborate results.

How do I get this article published?

Regards, Vishakha 1.23.72.46 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify. How is the effectiveness verifiable through standard medical reports if there is not much published information? Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Further to Robert's comment, Wikipedia policy dictates that we are not interested in whether a "healing method" is effective, but rather whether it has been covered in some depth by independent, reliable, published sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I would reword that. We only consider a healing method verifiably effective if its effectiveness has been covered by independent reliable published sources. However, the original poster's question seems to be contradictory. If the healing method is verifiable through standard medical reports (reliable sources), how is there not much published information? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed - though we could also have an article about an ineffective method, so long as it was documented in reliable sources. The point being, effectiveness isn't the issue but rather sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

True. We have lots of articles on pseudo-science and quackery. However, to the original poster, there seems to be a contradiction between saying that there is not much published information and that the effectiveness is verifiable through standard medical reports. I would still like the original poster to clarify. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your response. It has helped clarify my thoughts better. To answer your question about my contradictory views on published material; I considered published material as articles etc.. that are published by say a book or journal. I did not know if practitioner's medical reports could be considered as published material. From the comments above it seems like these reports can be considered as references and that is heartening. I'd like to rewrite my article and back it with all the references I have.

Regards, Vishakha Atmayogachennai (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Medical records that doctors keep on their patients would not be an acceptable source, Atmayogachennai (and I don't know how you would have access to them). Only published medical reports (for example, in a medical journal) would be acceptable here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I am new to this area of Wiki... I first want to thank you for your kind invitation to learn. I suffer from lack of time to spend on such sites as I work two jobs. So, please forgive me in advance for any lack of knowledge that I currently do not posses on these matters.

I have a site that is almost all about "Events" and want to share the site on Wiki. So the first question is can I do that?

The next question is right up your alley. That is how to go about editing comments. Am I allowed to share the url here?

Kind regards, WolfieLoneWolf95665 (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wolfie, I'm not sure that your website would be regarded as a

WP:reliable source in the Wikipedia sense, where we prefer to cite sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy published in print or broadcast by an established organisation. That's not to say that your website has anything wrong with it, just that we don't usually cite this type of source. When you edit articles, you should normally cite such reliable sources using a citation template or a similar format. Dbfirs

18:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that LoneWolf95665 is proposing to use the website concerned as a source, but rather to create a Wikipedia article about it. Is that correct, LoneWolf95665? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes, now that I've read

notability in the Wikipedia sense. Dbfirs

22:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse

significant coverage in independent reliable sources

. Has whatshappeningtoday.com received such coverage (like for example articles in the San Francisco Chronicle)? If not an article about it would not be accepted.

If that doesn’t discourage you, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Since whatshappeningtoday.com is your website, you are “strongly discouraged” from writing an article about it. Wikipedia is not for getting the word out.

If you are still not discouraged, please read

Wikipedia:Your first article. —teb728 t c

23:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

IN as much as I see the discouragement sent in your citations I do offer such legal and verifiable information as that which resides with the United States Trade Mark and Patent Office. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:pqu5j.2.1.

As for other sources of verification we offer also the registrar of Wild West domains on the who is.

Beginning March of 2016 we will begin running radio advertisements promoting the site with KVGCradio in Jackson California.

And as for conflict of interest maybe I should ask if a newspaper reporter from a small town would be able to write a non-biased, non-conflict of interest wiki. "Who wrote the one for Facebook?"

I am not discouraged as to my efforts in marketing the site. As I mentioned I wanted to see how Wiki was used and was forthright in the beginning as to being a novice.

This all smacks of "snobishness" and control of history and facts. Kind of like what is not shared here on what happened to the American Indians.. hmmm boycott.. wiki? Well.. I guess I do not need to donate the thousands any longer. So now I am not discouraged. LoneWolf95665 (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure that you appreciate the need for us to have some rules here at Wikipedia, LoneWolf95665. One of those is that in order to demonstrate that it is possible to write a neutral article about a topic, we need to have independent sources about it. A radio advertisement for a product or website is not an independent source. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

How do one move their sandbox article content to another page? Sedique (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse

Wikipedia:Your first article. One of the things it teaches is to check first that there is not already an article on your subject. —teb728 t c

09:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

My article was declined by the reviewer. I appreciate the decision and want to make my article more appropriate for wikipedia. Need your assistance in this regard. If you please highlight the words and phrases which I should change, it would be easier for me to edit. Thank you in advance. Drabantika17 (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It is always useful in such questions if you give a

WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk

) 06:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Drabantika17: you have uploaded an image of a book cover, claiming it as "own work". The photography may be your own work, but I doubt that the book cover is. I fear that this image may have to be removed from Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The page The Cuckoo (song) has a footnote with an external link that has rotted. However, the external site has been archived to another site, so a replacement link is possible to the same content. What's the correct way to fix this?

The current reference at the end of the page reads:

 "The Cuckoo". Folkinfo. June 8, 2006. Retrieved 2009-01-02.

1. Silently change the link destination?
2. Change the destination, lose the information that the destination is part of the now-defunct "Folkinfo" site?
3. Add a few words noting that the site is now archived at this other link?

And what is the correct style for making the change using the {{cite}} syntax?

Thanks,

Eac2222 (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Eac2222. That citation uses the template {{cite web}}. If you click on that linked template, you'll see it has documentation. Under Examples, see the documentation for Using "archive-url" and "archive-date" (and optionally "dead-url") for webpages that have been archived. See also the later section under URL. If you have any problem after reading that, please ask. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit -- thanks! I hadn't thought of looking for doc in the template. I think I've got the page right now.

Eac2222 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, new to Wikipedia :) Just wondering if it is possible to see a character count when writing a new section on your username talk page? Any help much appreciated Lyndzcmedia (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lyndzcmedia. I know of no native ability to do this, but you could always hit preview, then copy and paste into a character counter such as this one. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is what you're looking for, @Lyndzcmedia:, but if you go to the "View history" section, it shows how the character count of the page changed with each edit. So when I look at the history entry related to your question above, it says (+319)‎ - you added 319 characters in that new section.--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Lyndzcmedia, might sound a bit silly bit you could copy and paste the text to a word document and check it there. KerryFromThePub (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could help me with making text into a hyperlink to something? For instance I want to mention a news article, and link it using the person involved's name. How would I do that?

Thanks!

KerryFromThePub (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

Referencing for beginners. I use fill-in-the-blank Citation templates, which contain a preformatted field for the URL. We do not usually hyperlink text in an article to an external website, but rather to other Wikipedia articles. The exception is a section at the end of an article with appropriate external links. For example, an article about a notable company will have a link to the company website at the end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

20:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I want create own section in user page about which pages I created. And I don't want, that be a simple style, I want that be a colorful, in short stylish.Music land - Lukaslt13 Come in my talk! 16:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse,

User page design center. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

20:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Start by reading the

WP:TRANSLATE guide page. If you need furthe assistance, you know where to find us. Roger (Dodger67) (talk

) 19:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

(

here - Arjayay (talk

) 19:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)