Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:HD)
    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)
    • For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
    • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
    • If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
    • Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
    • For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
    • New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).
    Ask a question
    Skip to top
    Skip to bottom

    January 16

    copyvio

    Stumbled across this article: Michael Habermann. Aside from questioning its notability, the article is practically verbatim from a direct primary source with 80% copyvio, here: [1] and [2] and reads like a resume. Is there a template that can be placed on the article stating this or something similar to invite editors to clean-up / re-write the article with secondary sources in their own words? There is already a "BLP sources" at the header. Maybe that's enough? Maineartists (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely a copyvio situation. While our article predates the earliest Internet Archive copies of those two sources, the earliest version of our article is a verbatim copy of the musician's website of the time. See https://web.archive.org/web/20040204000620/http://www.michaelhabermann.com/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Habermann&oldid=24277064 There is no copyright mention on the musician's website so we have to assume it is copyrighted. There are only minor differences between the current article and the initial 2005 version, so in my opinion this is a WP:TNT situation. the entire article should be deleted as a copyvio, and recreated with independent sources if warranted. Meters (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    His current page, https://www.michaelhabermann.com/ is copyrighted 2001, and the ABOUT MICHAEL HABERMANN subpage, https://www.michaelhabermann.com/about/_index.html is unchanged from the version we copied in 2005. Meters (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominated as a copyvio WP:TNT at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Habermann. Meters (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Maineartists! When you see an article with potential copyright problems, there are a few things you can do. Firstly, if the material seems to have been blatantly copy-pasted, you can remove the material and ask an administrator to delete the material from the page's history. If deleting the material would leave no article, you can instead nominate it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. If it's more complicated than that, or you can't tell which material came first, you can list the article at the copyright problems noticeboard.
    In this case, after confirming that the external material came first, I removed it and turned the article into a very short stub. I have asked an administrator to delete the history[3]. I'll leave a note at the AfD so everybody understands what went on. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Do not see edit button

    I do not see an edit button when I log in. Have I been blocked? If so, why? Davidhhelman (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You are not blocked. If you were you would not have been able to edit this page. Meters (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davidhhelman: There are some pages that have certain levels of protection. Did you see a lock icon by the top-right corner of the page? An exception I'm aware of is the main page, which is fully protected, or administrator-only. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can share what pages you were looking at, we could confirm if they are indeed protected which might prevent you from editing. Depending on what device/brower/skin you're using instead of an edit button you might see something like "view source" and if you see that, then there is a very high likelyhood the page you want to edit has been protected, often because of vandalism, and things such as recent political events or global news are often falling into this category. If you want to see something changed on those pages, you can make a WP:EDITREQUEST on the talk page of the article. When you do that, please be specific on you want "X changed to Y" and provide reliable sources to support that change. TiggerJay (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Does CSD G-14 apply if the disambiguation page has other red links? E.g. there is a ship name index page and there is one ship with an article but another without an article yet(however there is a link to it's ship class's article) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That does not sound like G14 because it's not an obvious and not-reasonably-debatable case. It sounds like there are at least two entries that have bluelink, even if one is only for an article about a broader topic. Could that broader-topic page specifically mention this specific example, such that this example's red-link be made a redirect to it (and therefore blue)? All that takes is one ref. Are there enough refs available you could write a small stub-article? DMacks (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding this

    How do I let newcomers know that they can ask me questions like the link? TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @TheTechie You sign up as a mentor! See Wikipedia:Growth Team features/Mentor list. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reference formatting

    I am not an expert on the different ways of laying out references, but the way it is done at the end of Karma Paul looks really strange to me. It starts with [what I think of as] standard refs, then switches to a form that has reference numbers (to those earlier refs) with page numbers. Is this an acceptable form of referencing, or does it need to be fixed? I will be interested to learn... Gronk Oz (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hypothesis: It's an attempt to avoid using in-line Template:Reference page while technically perhaps not mixing reftag/sfn citing. It looks very weird and IMO still goes against at least the spirit of WP:REFVAR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't really feel that the footnote template worked very well but haven't come across the Reference page template until now. I'll revise those on the Karma Paul page. Thanks for flagging it up. Babybrew6 (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Babybrew6, do you wish to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Babybrew6: Ah, that looks so much better now. Much easier to read. Thanks for being so responsive, and thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Help! Rail-interchange

    I want to add a new rail-interchange template for the red line of Namma metro (displayed here Template:Rail-interchange/doc/IN), but couldn't seem to figure out how others were added. I searched everywhere but could not find anything. Footy2000♡; 14:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you would do better to ask at TT:Rail-interchange/IN (which has not so far been created) or perhaps better still to add an edit request at TT:Rail-interchange ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That page has not been created because the various documentation subpages just detail region-specific codes for the rail-interchange template, all of these different doc subpages exist to avoid having a massive and hard to navigate documentation page. Also, those links go to Tatar Wikipedia.
    I agree that the best option is to add an edit request to Template talk:Rail-interchange. Reconrabbit 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! I thought TT was a standard shortcut for "Template Talk". ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ngl, that redirect to Tatar wikipedia caught me off gaurd. Thank you for the responses though, it helped. Footy2000♡; 03:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How to re-enable alerts on new in-links pointing to a given article

    I received an alert (Bell icon) about a new in-link targeting article FOO that I follow, and clicked in the alert to go to the Foo-linking article. At least, that's what I wanted to do, but in reality, I mistakenly clicked something in the message that caused a message to appear saying "You will no longer be notified about in-links to FOO". How do I undo this? I still want to be notified when editors add links to FOO from other articles. I checked FOO, and I am still a watcher.

    I searched around, but couldn't find how to undo this. At one point, I landed at Wikipedia:Article alerts, but that's not it. (A hatnote added to the top of that page linking wherever the right page is would be helpful to other users who encounter this.)

    As a corollary, on the analogy of email unsubscribe-confirmed messages that provide a 'Resubscribe' link in case you just made a mistake and never intended to unsubscribe, a small, added, Undo alert removal link added to the you-will-no-longer-be-notified message that would undo the action would be nice. Where would I propose that? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Go to your preferences. On Notification tab, at bottom under Muted pages for page link notifications, click the X on the article you have muted to restore notifications, then Save.
    When I tested muting a notification for page links, there was a brief pop-up that told me I could manage them in preferences, but it's easy for that to disappear before you read it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Schazjmd, thanks so much for this. I did actually swing by the preferences page and even the notifications tab, but obviously I didn't scroll down far enough. While looking at all the options visible upon first view of that page above the fold—even scrolling down 80% of the page—they are all site-wide options, not page-specific, and I reasoned that this page was wholly about site-wide options, and didn't scroll down that last little bit, so I missed that last part at the very bottom, and clicked away too soon. (That pref page tab might benefit by a small link above the fold, mentioning the possibility of page-specific options at the bottom.) Anyway, I've undone the muting on that page, and in the bargain I discovered two other pages that are muted, much to my surprise and annoyance, and against my preference, as I never even knew alerts were blocked for those. Probably tons of users have pages muted from alerts that they are not even aware of.
    And yeah, that pop-up is too brief—do you have any idea where should one go to propose a change to the pop-up, maybe to have a longer time-out, a dismiss icon, and an Undo link? Some project here or at mw:? If Phab, what project? Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't, @Mathglot, sorry. I agree that it could use some work; if I hadn't been looking for something to tell me where to go, I would have missed it. Interestingly, when I did the test, I found that I had other pages muted as well, although I don't recall ever doing so. Schazjmd (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, @Mathglot. I would start at WP:VPT - the folks there might direct you somewhere else. ColinFine (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Language Addition

    Adieu Vinyle La rebelle : Les aventures de la jeune George Sand Neea River Hey,

    I have made several articles over the past 24 hours that are have been available in other languages before I made the English Wikipedia page. How do I add the languages to the wiki, so people can select their language? Thanks

    Electricsnake247 (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Electricsnake247, your question has been answered at the Teahouse. Please don't post the same question in multiple places, thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cannot see article I wrote.

    Hey,

    I wrote the article La rebelle : Les aventures de la jeune George Sand today and published it. I am now trying to search for it and it won't come up automatically unless I copy/paste the title or if I go to see all results.

    This hasn't happened before so i am unsure what is going on.

    Thanks Electricsnake247 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Electricsnake247: mw:Help:CirrusSearch#How frequently is the search index updated? says: "The second index to consider is the fuzzy auto-complete title search. This index is updated once a day and mirrors what was found in the full-text search index at the time the index was updated. Depending on timing a new page could take two days to be found in the fuzzy title autocomplete." PrimeHunter (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    January 17

    I need help... again.

    How do I add a file from another Wikipedia? User332224 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean a existing image from another language of Wikipedia? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 00:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    yes User332224 (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I mean. User332224 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you link the pic you have in mind, editors here might be able to tell you if it's possible to use that pic on en-WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, see this for information on how to add them to a article. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 00:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only images that can be displayed on English Wikipedia pages are ones that are here on enwiki or are on commons. You cannot display an image here from another language's wikipedia. But (depending on the file's license and how you plan to use it) you might be able to download the file from that other language and then upload it here on enwiki or maybe to commons. DMacks (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I plan to place it on the infobox in an English translation of a page on the Portuguese wikipedia. User332224 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean this? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 15:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This pic? [4] If so, when/if your translation is accepted in article space, you can upload it locally on en-WP. If that happens, go to the File upload wizard and chose "Upload a non-free file". > "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use" > "This is the official cover art of a work." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding City Officials and Job Description

    I am attempting to add the city's elected Officials Treasurer and Clerk, however I am stumped on to include them. DeanLJones (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Treasurer and clerk are usually not included in an article about a city due to the relative lack of coverage these positions received. If some notable individual has or had served in one of these roles, you can mention their time in office by adding Template:Infobox officeholder as a module of the existing infobox. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This user appears to be a WP:SPA centered solely on editing the article for Compton, California. Sarsenet (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Copying from GFDL-only Wikipedia

    Copying from GFDL-only sources is prohibited. However, does this extend to Wikipedia when it was GFDL-only? In other words, is it prohibited to copy from a pre-2009 Wikipedia edit to an article today? If not, why? JJPMaster (she/they) 04:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, JJPMaster. I think that GNU Free Documentation License and its references should answer most of your questions. In brief, special arrangements were made in the phase-out of GFDL licensing from Wikipedia, and I do not fully understand all those provisions. Cullen328 (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct value of page= parameter when citing a journal via a compilation of an entire volume

    Hi, apologies if some of my terminology is off, but I'm trying to figure out what the proper way is to cite an article within a journal where the source available online is a compilation of an entire volume of the journal, with its own page numberings. The source in question is at this link; the article is on page 456 of volume 14, but presumably the article's page number when issue 28 was distributed on its own was different. There doesn't seem to be any obvious way to distinguish whether the reference is citing the article within the volume as a whole or an individual issue of the volume.

    I've gone with this for now, but I'm not sure if this is correct: {{cite journal |last1=Taylor |first1=J.N. |title=Organic Chemicals |journal=World Trade Notes on Chemicals and Allied Products |date=13 July 1940 |volume=14 |issue=28 |page=456 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jdseHwBxG5YC&pg=PA456 |access-date=17 January 2025 |publisher=[[United States Department of Commerce|Department of Commerce Chemical Division]] |location=Washington, D.C. |language=en}}.

    Thank you! Jokullmusic 17:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Jokullmusic you should give the page number in the edition that you are using. I may be wrong, but I believe that the page number would have been the same in both versions when the journal was issued in 1940 so that the citation based on an individual issue and based on the bound volume would be the same. TSventon (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks more like a newsletter, or something similar, than a peer-reviewed academic or scholarly journal so I would use {{cite periodical}} (an alias of {{cite magazine}}) and |periodical=. As above, cite the source that you consulted; how the individually distributed issue was paginated is irrelevant if you did not consult that issue.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to you and User:TSventon both for clearing that up. I'll switch it to the periodical template -- I was uncertain between the two. Jokullmusic 18:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jokullmusic, agree with both of the above. I would add the following, which may help if you have similar questions in the future. Think about the bottom line, namely, why do we have these citation templates in the first place: it is to ensure verifiability, and in the case of any given citation, it is to answer the question: "How do I get an interested user to the right place so that they can see that the content in the article is backed up by this source?" So whatever you are looking at, tell the user exactly how to get there, including the page number if applicable, but also: if there are multiple ISBN's for hardback, paperback, etc., give them the one for your item; if you are looking at the second edition, then include |edition=2; if you are looking at the 2025 publication of an anthology first published in 1940, give them |date=2025 and the current publisher, location, and page number of that one, and if you wish, optionally add the |orig-date=1st pub. Old_Publisher:1940 which lets the reader know that the one you found was not the original, and allows them to delve deeper, if they wish. Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe im just making a mistake, but whenever i attempt to include links such as this: https://californiarevealed.org/search?search_api_fulltext=&f[0]=search_page_series_title:Shades%20of%20Fresno%20Collection in the external links page and add the text afterwards it doesn't fully work. I believe this is because of the brackets in the link itself. Does anyone have a solution so I can include these type of links on Wikipedia. Thank you! NewishIdeas (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @NewishIdeas:, when I switch the search results to show 96 results, the [0] disappears from the url: https://californiarevealed.org/search?search_api_fulltext=&f%5B0%5D=search_page_series_title%3AShades%20of%20Fresno%20Collection&items_per_page=96. Schazjmd (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It hasn't disappeared, it's been encoded to %5B0%5D. See Help:URL#Fixing links with unsupported characters. The original page without changing the number of results - if that's important - can be linked like this. —Cryptic 20:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If I am looking at this correctly, it appears you replaced the bracketed zero with %5B0%5D and that fixed the issue? NewishIdeas (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. —Cryptic 20:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot I appreciate it! NewishIdeas (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    January 18

    Citation numbering

    I added a citation to an existing article, somewhere in the middle. Although the number of the previous citation was something like 18, my added one ended up with 44.

    I was surprised, assuming everything would automatically renumber. It looks so weird now. Should I have done something to make automatic renumbering happen? Augnablik (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Augnablik: You did right and shouldn't do anything else. Citations can be used multiple times as described at WP:REFNAME. They are automatically numbered by their first appearance. The citations in [5] jump from 18 to 46 but if you click "18" then it says "18. ^ a b c d e" This means citation 18 is used five times. Each letter is a link to a use. The first use is after citation 17. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that letters following the citation number show various times in the article that the same citation is used. It just seems strange that a new citation right after previous citation 18 wouldn't become citation 19 instead ... and all other citation numbers in the article change accordingly. That's what would occur in word processing. But thanks, @PrimeHunter, for explaining how things work with Wikipedia citations, which was what my question entailed.
    I guess I'll always wonder why Wikipedia tekkies don't make updated numbering happen with citation changes, but I probably won't lose sleep over it. Augnablik (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter and Augnablik: The citation numbers are auto-generated when the article is displayed, and are not stored when it's updated. The reason you get a gap in numbers (i.e. from 18 to 46) is because citations 19 to 45, which occurred earlier in the document, was then followed by a reuse of citation 18, so the citation number that's displayed after 45 is followed by the reused citation 18, and then the subsequent citation would be "new" (i.e. the earliest occurrence of this citation in the document), so it would be assigned 46. Fabrickator (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Errrkkk... Augnablik (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Augnablik: I said "They are automatically numbered by their first appearance." By this I meant the first time the citation number is displayed on the page whenever the page is rendered. The numbers are updated automatically every time the page is rendered, even if the page hasn't been edited but there are citation changes on transcluded pages. The first appearance of 18 is between 17 and 19 in the Music career section (citation 17 had been used earlier so it's not the first appearance of 17). Citation 18 appears four more times and keeps being called 18 because that's the number it has in the references section. Maybe it's a little confusing but I think it would be worse if the same citation had five different citation numbers and was repeated five times in the references section. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what I’m used to in pretty much all types of writing involving footnotes (or endnotes) is a new number for each citation. This means, then, that if a citation is used multiple times, it does get a new number.
    I can see one advantage in Wikipedia’s style: we get to see at a glance which footnotes came from the same reference. Although we could get the same information by looking at the footnotes done in the more conventual way, it would be much more time-consuming, especially if there are a lot of footnotes.
    I still find it jarring to see citation numbers throughout the article so way out of sequence, but at least I understand this is simply how footnotes work in Wikipedia. And now that I’m thinking about all this — weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each way of doing footnotes — I can see merit to Wikipedia’s. I just wasn’t prepared for it, and I kind of think many other readers won’t be either — with the likelihood of not just some confusion but also some concern that Wikipedia’s not working right, and maybe in turn contribute to the beginning of a trust issue. Augnablik (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly prefer Wikipedia's method of numbering references because it cuts down on reuse bloat. Imagine if Wikipedia numbered all sources by order of appearance, and the same reference was used three times in an article, all distant from one another. That source would be given three different numbers, and each instance would repeat redundant information that increases page length. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    List of marine bony fishes of South Africa#cite_note-Smiths_2003-3 is used 1379 times. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Tenryuu, in conventual footnoting you give all the publication details just once, the first time the citation is used. From then on, you use a much shorter format to refer to the same source.
    But yes, I can see that Wikipedia’s format cuts down on the number of times the same footnote is used — or, as you have so picturesquely termed it, “reuse bloat.” I wonder if this format is an up-and-coming new contender for acceptance in the world of editing that I simply wasn’t aware of. Augnablik (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if citations are shortened in subsequent uses, that still results in bloat (which may be the most accessible option in print). I can see it being useful where a full bibliography is given at the very, very end of the work. Mediawiki's able to get past this by virtue of being electronic with easy access to the sources through linking. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    List of shipwrecks in 1966

    OK, this one is puzzling me. On the list of shipwrecks in 1966, the [edit] button is not showing for September onwards. I've got no idea why this is, no obvious error in the last entry for August. Mjroots (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Fixed There was a missing pair of closing braces. DonIago (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doniago: Thank you! Mjroots (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability

    Hi help desk hosts, I am working on Draft:Stephan Nance. I think it is barely GNG passing with the sources currently in the article and I was unable to locate any additional ones. Did I miss any sources and if not is the references in the article enough to pass GNG? Justiyaya 06:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The sourcing is rather thin, and the article is currently too short. You are right that this is barely meeting WP:GNG, so it needs more work.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I copied a User Draft to Mainspace before it was ready - how to delete it?

    I thought that User:Gronk Oz/Peter Botten was ready for mainspace, so I created Peter Botten. But a heap of errors showed up in mainspace which were not apparent in the user draft. So I would like time to fix them in the User Draft - is there an easy way to remove it from Mainspace? Gronk Oz (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have checked all the CSD criteria, and I can't find one that caters for this situation. Any suggestions?--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Try WP:G7 -- Ϫ 12:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @OlEnglish: That looks like just the thing. I did not recognize it from the description earlier; I need to look more carefully. Thanks.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Geohack

    Has Geohack gone down? I'm getting error pages whenever coordinates on articles are clicked. Rupples (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's working again now. Rupples (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism help request from WendlingCrusader

    I have noticed some vandalism at Monakhov gorge. And as soon as you view the pop-up screen you will see the problem! Namely, for the second time in six days, a brand-new editor has vandalised this page. The first editor [6] wrote in english, and has since been blocked. This second editor [7] has added text in a foreign language (Indonesian?), together with a telephone number. I feel it requires more than a simple reversion. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, WendlingCrusader (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has been warned. ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Live on TV

    i was watching fox news live and litterly 4 minutes ago Marsha Blackburn publicly expressed intrest in running for tennessee governor. how would i cite that? Cannolorosa (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't. A politician saying something is not of itself encyclopaedic.
    Wait until this has been discussed by secondary sources. See NOTNEWS. ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding Portals

    How to add more Portals? 2toneq (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    January 19

    Tracing a comment

    Hello, I have a trival WP:RTP hangup. I can't find the source of 63.98.140.237's comment that appears in this page creation, which is sourced from this page. Leaving a message in case any WikiWizards know a quick method to search historical WP other than Special:Search (no result for me other than the copied destination). (Were IP contributions not recorded in Sep '03?) Tule-hog (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tule-hog: If you click View logs for this page in the page history then it shows a deletion in 2006. As an administrator I can see the deleted edits which include the edit by the IP. BoNoMoJo copy-pasted and redirected Talk:Inductive reasoning in 2003. The copy was later moved back to the original title. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Answering extended confirmed requests

    If a request is too complicated or I'm not familiar enough with the topic, should I respond letting them know this, or should I just ignore the request and wait for (and if) someone else to answer? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally best to ignore such requests. When pages are protected, they are often for very good reasons and you don’t want to bypass that protection without good cause. TiggerJay (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1270368935"