Hello, Ray108!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that your access history table will be the last straw that broke the camel's back, as I am about to propose that the article be split into peer-reviewed archaeology v popular culture. Meanwhile, your addition is in jeopardy in any case because you didn't provide any evidence for it. See Wikipedia:citing sources. It is not ever so easy so you may wish to ask for advice at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the citations. If you want to get the formatting nice, a minimal improvement of

• <ref>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-57552777</ref> (which produces this^[1])

is to write

• <ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-57552777 Stonehenge summer solstice: In pictures]</ref> (which produces this^[2])

better still would be to use the template:cite news, like this

• <ref>{{cite news|title=Stonehenge summer solstice: In pictures |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-57552777 Stonehenge summer solstice: In pictures |date=21 June 2021 |work=BBC News}}</ref> which produces this ^[3]

(ignore the nowiki tags, I've just used them so you can see the syntax.)

Welcome again to Wikipedia. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you for your comments. I've added a lot more citations. I understand that the whole Stonehenge page might be getting a bit too cluttered. I am fairly new to Wiki editing so please forgive my early interventions. Many thanks, Jim Ray108 (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, your interventions are welcome. It is not your fault that the Stonehenge page has just gotten too big (IMO of course, others may disagree).

I am assuming you are planning to stick around, so it is a good idea to learn how to do citations nicely. {{Cite news}} and {{cite web}} are the easy ones to pick up. Some of the others still give me the horrors – they are complicated but they have to be. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, yes I did wonder myself that the whole Stonehenge page was getting overloaded. I did think about how it might be spilt, but I’ll leave that to the experts! 79.77.69.3 (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because of Wikipedia's wp:No original research policy, every assertion must be supported by a WP:reliable source. What constitutes a reliable source is documented in that article but one of the more important "no-no"s is wp:user generated content. And the best example of UGN is Wikipedia itself, hence WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So you can't cite it. But what you certainly can do is find the original citation used in the Wikipedia article in question and copy it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for letting me know about citing the references and no research. I'll look to update the sources for the references. Jim 79.77.69.3 (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you make a big change, it is helpful to other editors to know what motivated the change – not what you did but why you did it. It is easy 'in the heat of battle' to forget, so I highly recommend using the Reminder setting. As I do, having gotten in bother a long time ago for the same reason. It also helpful for your own use, to be able to find quickly which was the edit where you did something. So our mutual convenience, here is the boiler-plate advice:

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Stonehenge did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Truncated railway station termini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sudbury. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]