Help desk
< April 28	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

April 29

Vandalism help request from 2001:558:6040:3C:D805:3BB0:6BDB:ECE9

I have noticed some vandalism at Megalodon. Namely, the cladogram under the section 'Evolution' has had species deleted and replaced with large-scale links to a locked sockpuppet account. I am having trouble finding a record of this text being inserted, though it appeared with the last two edits. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, 2001:558:6040:3C:D805:3BB0:6BDB:ECE9 (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this is vandalism of a template used in the article rather than vandalism of the article itself. I suggest that you bring this matter to the Village pump/Technical where editors with that type of skill tend to congregate. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm a template used in that cladogram was vandalised. It was reverted quickly(diff), but these changes can get cache'd for a while if no one purges the affected article.

– 2804:F14:80C8:4701:F4E7:1EC8:CF9F:1541 (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com working?

I went to edit today, and my newspapers.com free account is inaccessible. Is this resource being a known issue for others too? Any idea when this will be fixed and accessible again? SportsGuy789 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportsGuy789: Probably best asked at meta:Talk:The Wikipedia Library. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing cookies did the trick. SportsGuy789 (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lupton family

Courtesy link: Lupton family

In the Hugh Lupton section, I am trying to put a link onto the name Geoffrey Charles Martineau Lupton， who has his own page in the "Chinese Wikipedia" section! Please do the link - I cannot get it right. Thanks - here is the link (Chinese) to Geoffrey Lupton: zh:陆端

Thanks 115.70.23.77 (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. "Geoffrey Charles Martineau Lupton" is still a red link to show that English Wikipedia has no article about them, but now, there's a blue link next to it that says "[zh]" that links to Geoffrey's Chinese Wikipedia article. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 05:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please get rid of the red writing on the name. Geoffrey Charles Martineau Lupton in the "Hugh Lupton" section of this page. It is good to have the link to the Chinese wikipedia page - but the red writing is not good. Thank-you 115.70.23.77 (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was the person who added the Chinese Wikipedia link. I hope you reconsider your position. The link being red lets readers know that English Wikipedia does not have an article on Geoffrey, and the blue link next to the red link lets them know that Chinese Wikipedia has an article on Geoffrey. Without the red link, readers would normally expect to read an English article about Geoffrey, and they would be confused when it shows them a Chinese article. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 05:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No; see WP:REDLINK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The red writing is how it should be done in this case, Template:Interlanguage link is the way to go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't red considered lucky in China? The red is also a sort of invitation to a knowledgeable reader to write an article about Geoffrey in English. —Tamfang (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complex copyright issue

Over a decade ago, a user rewrote substantial portions of an article as part of a push to bring it to GA status (which it still holds). Unfortunately it appears that that rewrite involved copying or close paraphrasing apparently copyrighted materials from multiple sources; there are also some references that editor used that are no longer available so I can't verify whether they were copied from or not. Fast forward to today, and a few thousand edits later this article contains a mix of content that's novel, content that's still largely identical to the sources, and a lot of content that's a derivative to some extent of that old problematic rewrite. What's the best way of addressing this? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best that I can suggest is rewriting/paraphrasing the parts you are fairly sure are still close to being copies of the copyrighted material. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.144.58 (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's part of a wider issue, consider posting at WP:CCI. For the specific article, it sounds like it's necessary to disentangle the problematic content from later additions. How complex that is will depend on what the later edits were. I wouldn't consider mild copyediting to change much, but content by other users adding new sources and text should hopefully be easy enough to distinguish. CMD (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CMD, I've confirmed similarly problematic edits by the same editor at a different article, so will plan to open a CCI. As for the one mentioned here... these additions affected multiple sections (following the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Suspected_or_complicated_infringement would template out most of the article) and there have been thousands of edits since then, so disentangling will definitely not be straightforward. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing citation overkill

I've found a few articles with weird citations where whoever added them seemed to have just searched Google Books for random phrases in the article, not read the results, and pasted them in as citations. This was not noticed by other editors, so they removed the most obviously problematic parts and continued editing the article normally. Here's an example: Special:Diff/1214145527. You can even see the search terms in the URLs.

Because it would take hours to go through all dozen or more citations in edits like this, I have assumed that it's fine to just revert the whole edit. I usually either do a big revert with Twinkle, edit the old revision, or go through the current revision and manually remove every citation added in the diff. All three ways are very time consuming because I have to make sure intervening good edits stay in or are re-added after reverting. Is there a better way to revert big problematic edits when Undo is not available? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can load the last revision before the edits, copy the content, and paste it into the current revision, and then account for later changes to the text. However, this risks errors on your part: if you overlook someone else's later changes, you'll revert them. My suggestion is simply to delete the overkill manually, with a link to this Help Desk post as an explanation. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mistake in the deletion of the Melinda Looi page

Hello, It appears there may have been a mistake in the deletion of the Melinda Looi page on Wikipedia. We believe there is valuable information about Melinda Looi that should be available to readers. We would appreciate guidance on how we can work together to retrieve and restore the page. We are open to collaborating with Wikipedia editors to ensure the article meets all necessary guidelines and standards. Thank you for your assistance. Kunal5651 (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal5651 Who is "we"? Accounts are strictly single person use and may not be shared. Are you associated with this person?

Melinda Looi was deleted per the result of this deletion discussion. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm part of Melinda Looi's team, serving as her business development manager. Melinda and I are currently addressing the deletion of her Wikipedia page. Could you kindly guide us through the steps to restore and update the page in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, please? Kunal5651 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal5651, the next thing that you must do, with your very next edit, is to make the Paid contributions disclosure. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. Please be aware that promotional activity is forbidden on Wikipedia. Read and study Conflict of interest and Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you for your time and clarification. I'm not an editor; I was just asked to find out what is wrong with the article and sort out the issue. I understand there is a part in the article that sounds promotional, which we are okay to edit.

Regarding paid contribution disclosure, as I'm not paid to do this and I'm just helping my boss, could you please explain what it means? Does this mean we need to contribute to Wikipedia? Your explanation would be helpful. Also, is there a way to restore the page again? thank you for your time Kunal5651 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kunal5651: Everyone who makes an edit on here, including you, is an editor. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, if you and Looi have an employer-employee relationship, you are considered to have a paid relationship, even if you don't receive any monetary compensation for this. Kindly make the paid contribution disclosure, preferably on your user page at User:Kunal5651. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Braese

HI!

I must get an article about Stefan Braese, my old boss, out of my sandbox and published.

I found some instructions on how to do it in pdf format, but the vital 'move' button next to 'search' is not on the page anymore.

Please, can you get the damned thing published? Or tell me what to do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AKyeMasters%2Fsandbox&oldid=prev&diff=1217969612

Thanks, you are so good-looking!

Kye KyeMasters (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did your ex-boss ask you to create an article? If so please read Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. And if he didn't, why the urgency? -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the information to allow you to submit it for a review; new accounts cannot directly create articles. It is completely unsourced, however, and would not be accepted. It reads like a resume and not an encyclopedia article that summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic, showing how it is notable; in this case, a notable person. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs work. It looks like a translation of de:Stefan Bräse, I have acknowledged that in the edit history per Help:Translation#License requirements. The references from that article have been copied as the documents section, but not linked to the text they are supposed to support. TSventon (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

I edited List of game engines and added Soba as an engine. Why is it deleted? Its an real engine: soba.xyz NikShucks (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NikShucks: Your addition was reverted by a bot, maybe for another reason but Template:Editnotices/Page/List of game engines should be displayed when you edit the article. Soba doesn't have its own article so it doesn't belong on the list. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NikShucks. Like most list articles, that article would be more accurately titled "List of Wikipedia articles about game engines". Write the article first.

But note that existence is not enough for something to be the subject of an article: it must meet Wikipedia's definition of notable, which broadly means that enough independent material about it has been reliably published to base an article on, remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Write about someone

How can I start writing on someones life Ogoodnews (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't recommend new contributors to start be creating a new article - it is better to gain some experience editing existing conent first. If you really want to start that way, first read Wikipedia:Notability (people), and only then, if you are confident that you can show that the person meets our notability criteria, see Help:Your first article for how to proceed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what are the25 similarities between 4H R school of thoughts as by article read written by Marie Benedicte Dembour

what are the25 similarities between 4H R school of thoughts as by article read written by Marie Benedicte Dembour 41.210.147.152 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your question makes little sense to me, but in any case it does not appear to be a question about editing Wikipedia, which is what this Help desk if for. ColinFine (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Do your own homework is relevant here. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to sign!

From early in my time on Wikipedia (registered 2006) until I went inactive in 2021, I used a feature that makes it hard not to sign edits on talk pages and other discussion pages: if I saved an edit without a signature, the interface would give me a reminder saying something like "did you mean to save this edit without a signature?" Of course it would let me save it without a signature if I wanted (I'd just have to hit "save" again), but this way I couldn't easily omit the signature by accident.

This edit showed me that such a feature is no longer active for my account. How do I reactivate it? I assumed it was in Special:Preferences, but I can't find it in the Gadgets or anywhere else. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the new world of the reply tool. I'm using it right now to reply to you, it is indenting and signing my post automatically. It doesn't have the exact functionality you describe, but it is pretty great. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Are you sure it was about a missing signature and not a missing edit summary? Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing has "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oops, yes you're right. I guess I can't think how such a feature would distinguish a new comment from an edit to an old one. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

viewing history of a specific section of an article

Is there any way to filter an article's history to see edits made to a specific section of said article? Probably not, I'm just curious I guess. Thanks, have a nice day! ¿VØ!D? ✨ 20:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to a particular section will typically include the section title in the edit summary. For example, my last article edit was to Hinche#Colonial era, and the edit summary is Colonial era: Wording improvements. Since sections are merely portions of an article — not distinct entities — it's possible to delete, rename, merge, etc. them, and aside from manually reviewing everything, there's no way to review edits to a given section if the name doesn't stay exactly the same. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't exactly fit what you're looking for, but there is a browser extension Who Wrote That? that allows you to hover over text and see who wrote it, which will let you see who made the most recent changes to a particular section and when that revision was made. Recon rabbit 22:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]