Talk:WikiHow

message: wikiHow now has an official MySpace profile. Reference Ayudante 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MySpace Page

message: I removed some of the discussion on this talk page per WP:SPAM. Please discuss ways to improve the article. 68.209.235.149 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on discussion 

message: There was a question in an edit summary on the history page why the link to the myspace page was removed. I was the editor who removed it after taking a look at it and seeing nothing going on...the last update was June 2007 when the page was created, and there are only a handful of friends. Myspace is an iffy link at best, and I didn't think the link added anything to the article or the understanding of the subject, but instead reinforced the not-so-nice comments made earlier. The link could be easily added when the page gains momentum. Flowanda | Talk 23:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myspace page link 

message: Instead of boldy removing this section altogether, please discuss your edits first and reach a consensus with other editors. Thanks. 68.209.235.149 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: Apparently some people get upset if you remove un-sourced junk from articles and get rid of cruft-magnet "criticism" sections, I'll explain the material I've removed:
And who says this other than a couple of Wikipedia editors? See WP:V.
One part is referenced (a simple statement of fact), the other part is more "critics argue" junk. WP:V.
More "critics argue" junk. WP:V
If you have a problem with this go argue with Wikipedia policy. This sort of crap doesn't have any place in an encyclopedia article.
Love, Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 06:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned this section up per POV issues and weasel wording, but don't feel that the entire section should otherwise be removed. In fact, I will do some research later to see if I can give this section more detail. 68.209.235.149 19:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You tried to clean up the material that someone reverted me on. You were pissing into the wind, I reverted to my more sane version. Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no basis for removing this section altogether. Until you can establish otherwise, it remains. 68.209.235.149 05:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sez u. Also, I didn't remove the material altogether. I removed specific claims of "criticism", on the basis that if it doesn't have a source, it never happened. The burden of proof is upon anyone that wants to keep that material in the article. The criticism which is attributable to specific people, is still in the article, just not in a separate "criticism" section.  Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 23:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've brought references in line with this section, and also trunceted it somewhat. Right now, it's looking pretty good. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, just to be clear about this section, I agree that the original criticisms were poorly written and unreferenced, though they definitely aren't without merit. The site does have a lot of issues with controversy based on article content and edit conflicts with its readers. This sort of contrasts with its non-neutral policy -- you often have one side of an issue trying to pull an article's content in one direction, and the other side opposing it. With the references, I went ahead and linked back to some examples of (talk pages) where this sort of conflict takes place. I also linked to a couple of critics' sites on the web, as to avoid directing too many references toward the wikiHow site itself. This holds the section together pretty well. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since I'll be reverted if I don't do this... 

message: I removed the section on articles causing offense or controversy because there were no sources outside wikihow used as citations, and I could find no sources meeting WP:RS. Note that non-notable websites and blogs do not meet reliable sources policies. Flowanda | Talk 05:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The references going back to wikiHow were used to illustrate a claim of consensus -- i.e., that censorship policies are ineffective, contradicting, and allow editors to inject their own bias into controversial subjects. The example I used -- which was actually very good -- was a discussion page and forum pertaining to the "How to leave the gay lifestyle" article which shows an overwhelming consensus for article removal, yet a few administrative editors (clearly identifiable as Conservative, per self-identified material on their talk pages) have overturned all AfD nominations at their own discretion, and claimed that the article simply stood on its own merits with no justification. This does a fairly good job of explaining itself, unless you feel there is room for interpretation. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those sources would be fine when used alongside a reliable source, but adding the links to dispute content in this article  seems like original research to me. Controversial sections do require more stringent sourcing, which forums, talk pages and primary sources don't meet. I am confused about "claim of consensus"...are you talking about edits made/reverted here or on wikihow?Flowanda | Talk 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you suggest? I'm actually not sure how we would go about referencing this part, aside from the material I've already provided. Admittedly, finding good references is not my strongest point. What I meant by "claim of consensus" was showing how the references (the discussion forum / talk pages) are generally in agreement that the issues pointed out in this article do indeed exist. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section on offensive content 

message: This page is tagged as needing better sources.  Maybe it is possible to find some unaffiliated articles: <http://www.wikihow.com/wikiHow:Herald/In-The-News>.
Sourcejedi (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: if available, could someone please put what software this used (I think I heard its either wordpress or mediawiki) thanks Ms.henrick (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the lead section, second paragraph "the site uses a modified version of MediaWiki 1.12.[6]" -- Versageek 19:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for tech info 

message: I plan on making a bold expansion on this article in the near future. I'm a very active contributor on wikiHow, so I know quite a bit about it. Writing Enthusiast (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plans for expansion 

message: There Is More Then 9742227  Asikhassan03 (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Famous Man 

message: Great article. Vimala Darshani (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank goodness... I worried this would lead to a lame joke. – AndyFielding (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki how 

message: Is WikiHow affiliated with WikiPedia, or not? Is it like WikiLeaks, where it has Wiki in the title but is unrelated with WikiMedia? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A first step would be to stop talking like a Ferengi and to say "woman". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on WikiHow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221102121/http://wikihow.tumblr.com/post/101433513326/wikihow-on-nbcs-parenthood-in-last-nights to http://wikihow.tumblr.com/post/101433513326/wikihow-on-nbcs-parenthood-in-last-nights
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: wikiHow in the URL is WikiHow. Every time I type wikiHow, it just goes to WikiHow. Fix it. 111.88.15.218 (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital is weird 

message: Please change:
Typically, images are illustrated by WikiHow admins, usually under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike-Noncommercial license. However, users may upload and contribute images.
To:
Typically, images are illustrated by wikiHow staff...users may upload and contribute images.
(I am not sure if editing wikiHow could potentially put me in a conflict-of-interest with this article, but I am putting this here just in case.)  Awesome Aasim 07:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Change to:  "Typically, images are illustrated by wikiHow staff, usually under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike-Noncommercial license; however, users may upload and contribute images."  Also, does contributing to wikiHow mean I may have a conflict-of-interest?  The COI policy is not super clear about it, but the talk page of Wikipedia states that all contributors of Wikipedia may have a potential COI when editing that article.  Awesome Aasim 19:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the information.  I guess I don't have a COI then because I do not work there.  Have a good day :) Awesome Aasim 18:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request (January 6, 2020) 

message: * The proposed sentence needs to be written verbatim.  Currently, there is an ellipsis entered between the words "staff" and "users". Please clarify how the proposed sentence is to be worded by using the verbatim text from the entire sentence.
*When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the  template's answer parameter to read from  to . Thank you!
Regards,  Spintendo  08:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Change to:  "Typically, images are illustrated by wikiHow staff, usually under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike-Noncommercial license; however, users may upload and contribute images."  Also, does contributing to wikiHow mean I may have a conflict-of-interest?  The COI policy is not super clear about it, but the talk page of Wikipedia states that all contributors of Wikipedia may have a potential COI when editing that article.  Awesome Aasim 19:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the information.  I guess I don't have a COI then because I do not work there.  Have a good day :) Awesome Aasim 18:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 6-JAN-2020

message: After noticing the  template was , my colleague User:JayneG2 at wikiHow left a message on User_talk:The_Anome asking for more information. She hasn't gotten a reply there yet so perhaps this is a better place to ask. We'd like to help address the issue but aren't sure what specifically prompted the template to be added. Also, any suggestions on how we, as employees of wikiHow, can best participate in improving the article would be very helpful.  Trevor Parscal (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there; I've reviewed the article and I can't see what might have led a fellow volunteer to think it was overly-positive, so I've reverted the addition for now. Happy to be corrected and reverted if someone can explain what they think might need fixing about the article's tone or content. James F. (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement template 

message: Okay—so officially, wikiHow uses the trendy initial lower-case W. But when it starts a sentence here, isn't it WP style to capitalize the first letter for clarity? If not, why does the article begin with it capitalized? Shouldn't the page be more consistent, one way or the other? (I'd choose to capitalize it when it starts sentences, but I may be influenced by my disdain for trendy defiance of things that are done for good reasons.) – AndyFielding (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization?