Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 856

I'm working on an article that has a few print sources referenced. I plan on interlibrary loaning the books and confirming that they say what they say (or just driving to a library) and clarifying the information as well as writing out notes for myself. However, is there a template that I can put on the talk page after doing this? Are there details I can add to the citation template? How do I make sure that future editors can refer to my work? Wow I've been asking a lot of questions. Sorry, but I'm on a roll. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 21:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shashi Sushila Murray: Within either of our editing tools we have a 'cite' button which offers you a range of template into which you add your reference. I'm assuming your reference will be either a book or a journal {{cite journal}}, and we have a template for both of these ({{cite book}} and {{cite journal}}. So long as it has been published, and not just a one-off archival document, that will be fine, even if it's a rare book. We assume readers will then be likely to be able to locate a copy to verify your stated fact(s) drawn from it. Don't forget to add page number(s), as well as all the usual elements such as title, author, publisher, publication date etc. You can use one reference multiple times by allocating a 'refname' to it, then just adding a different page number to each one using the {{rp}} template. Like this^[1]: 123 and this ^[1]: 456 For more information on references, see Help:Referencing for beginners. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes, thank you for your time. I probably was being vague. I already have figured out how to use both the plain wikitext templates and the visual editor's tools to use different templates. What I'm talking about is when I'm improving an article that had already relied on a print source, but the prior editor has used vague, imprecise, dubious, or contentious language. Or even if they've written things that are contradicting what other authoritative sources are saying. How do I document, whether on the talk page, in wikitext comments, or with some special fields that I'm overlooking in the citation templates, that I've confirmed the information in the sources and added notes for future editors? Have a great day, 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 22:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shashi Sushila Murray: Sorry I misunderstood your question. It's an interesting and very valid one. In general, what I would do is ensure any re-wording actually follows the stated source, and then simply add an explanation within the 'edit summary', explaining that I had checked and verified the reference and had updated previously misleading content based upon that reference. Should I feel that might not be sufficient, I might consider explaining the changes I have made (or propose to make) on the talk page of the relevant article. There is a little extra advice here on adding additional annotations if you still don't think your work on clarifying content based on a reference is clear. Hoping this helps a bit more! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick Moyes. Based on all of this this seems like the best process to make my work easy to follow and to rebuff future misrepresentations (if I find any):

1. Create a talk page section showing the prose in question, clearly articulating the issues, then explaining that I will confirm the information in the print sources.
2. Read the sources and make any modifications necessary on the page and provide an inline link to the talk page section in the edit summary. I will add explanatory annotations or the "Quote" field if it seems necessary to rebuff future deliberate (or good-faith) misrepresentations. If I find that the sources back up the prose in question, I will make the prose stronger.
3. Update the talk page summarizing my edits with links to the diff pages and enclosing the section within a "closed discussion" template.
4. Provide wikitext comments with a permanent link to the section I created and have faith that future editors will remove these when necessary.

Thank you for your time, 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 23:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shashi Sushila Murray: Sounds good. Obviously, this is quite long-winded, and only necessary if you do anticipate challenges over articles. Oh, the one thing I did forget to mention was that you could notify whoever made past edits over which you have concerns and seek their input. All you need to do is just mention their username (in this format: {{u|John Smith}} ) to alert them to any relevant thread. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick Moyes. It may be long-winded, but if we're writing an encyclopedia, I'm going to take it all quite seriously. Also, with what I've seen with how absurd edit wars can get, I don't really have much confidence in the community here. I get the impression that there's a lot of agenda-pushing via familiarity with the guidelines and clever, albeit inadequate, argumentation (not to mention wars of attrition and this strange ever-shifting concept of "consensus"—seems like a sacred mystery). I think of myself as a reader-turned-editor who finally got fed up with what I was seeing in neglected articles and in article talk pages and edit histories. So, my motivation is to improve Wikipedia by following all of the guidelines very closely and providing profuse documentation. Sorry if this sounds rude, but I'm sure many editors start editing out of frustration. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 00:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shashi Sushila Murray: Doesn't sound rude at all, though I do sense your frustrations. It's great to hear someone so committed to ensuring accuracy and fair play. You have my full support for that!Nick Moyes (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I submitted a page last month and still got no feedback from anyone whether the page was approved or not or if there's something I need to work on it. Please let me know how could I proceed. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohjesabee (talk • contribs) 00:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ohjesabee: are we talking about the draft about Matt Artisan at User:Ohjesabee/sandbox? It doesn't look like it has been submitted for review yet. To submit it to Articles for Creation, copy and paste {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft. Or, let us know that is what you want and someone here can do it. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I was recently blocked for a week for disruptive editing and uploading a non-free photo despite having permission from the creator to use it. but now it has expired. I was suggested to go ask for the best way to approach an article. What is the best way to approach an article? Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

A good look at some of our policies and guidelines should help you understand how to best approach articles. They offer many pointers on how to behave and to understand what is proper content for Wikipedia.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In looking at your Contributions, it at times looks like you have copied an existing article into Draft and then worked on the Draft (sometimes also working on the original article), with the intent of later replacing the existing article with your draft. I suggest you either work on the existing article directly, or copy sections into your Sandbox, edit there, then paste back into the existing article. David notMD (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Does the extended confirmed right by itself also have the features of (auto)confirmed (when a user doesn’t have (Auto)confirmed but has extended confirmed)? PorkchopGMX (Sign your posts with four tildes!) 23:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@PorkchopGMX: You automatically are given autoconfirmed status after four days and ten edits. It cannot be removed, so when you reach extended confirmed status, you will be both an extended confirmed user and an autoconfirmed user. — MRD2014 ^Talk 01:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I deliberately held-off posting in the Section, trying a tactic I've used in forums, of not "flooding" the OP and the whole thread by my posts, thereby driving off participation. In this case it's backfired. I didn't know a Tea House thread would be "archived" after a "few days" (which is meaningless and really should be corrected). I assume the answer is "No", but I need to hear it. Please quote Wikipedia Policy, Guidelines, etc... if this information is actually recorded here somewhere.Tym Whittier (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Tym Whittier. This is a fairly high volume page and in most cases a question is answered within a few minutes or a few hours of posting. If there is ongoing discussion, the archiving is delayed until nothing new has been added for a few days. The helpful message on your talk page contains a link to the archived discussion; archive is not a euphemism for "thrown out" or "hidden away". But the archived threads are moved off the active page and if you want to follow up with additional questions later, you're expected to create a new section on this main Teahouse page (it's the one that people are actively watching). And if someone sees you making a change to an archive, they will most likely revert your edit.

While Help:Archiving a talk page#Continuing discussions mentions that Given that archived discussions are immutable, archiving a discussion effectively ends that particular discussion. When reopening a discussion is desired, links to archived discussions can be provided in the new discussion thread. there is also an advisory notice at the top of the page that says the page is not necessarily "policy".

But as several of us have tried to explain, Wikipedia is not a host for "forum" communication in the sense that you seem to be familiar with. The intent is to build an encyclopedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tym Whittier, there is no place here on Wikipedia where it is appropriate for you to comment at length about your personal opinions about any topic. This is a project to build and improve an encyclopedia. Accordingly, all discussion here should be oriented to how to improve specific articles in specific ways, or how to improve the encyclopedia in general. Other types of discussion should take place on social media sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or countless other such websites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

How do I change my username?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaz1411 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jaz1411. I found information about it for you here and here. I hope that helps. Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 04:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Jaz Martin article you should really take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners. And per your username, perhaps Wikipedia:Autobiography. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

How to post my answer to the editor's talk page?

Thank you, Alx mikh (Inverse Sets) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alx mikh (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

To communicate with an editor on their talk page, click on the "New section" tab at the top.

A comment on your sandboxed draft: it's about a transitive relation between pairs of sets of sets. It would help if you

1. said so near the start of the draft
2. gave the name of this relation at the start of the draft (and told it to Legacypac, as the "topic name"). Maproom (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Alx mikh. If you go to a page where you can view the editor's username, then there should be a link to their talk page next to it. Otherwise if you click on their username, then you can click the "talk" button at the top next to the Wikipedia logo. This page will take you to a guide to talk pages: WP:TALKPAGE. 🤠 Let me know if my explanation makes sense or if you need more help. Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 08:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I am wondering what constitutes the difference between advertising and trying to create an informative edit. On the Sun Country Airlines page my edit regarding their new rewards program keeps getting reverted. I do not see how my additions are anything but information on the rewards program of an airline. If you look at the SkyMiles Wikipedia page you will see that my edit is very similar to the edits on that page but those are not considered advertising?? Raine004 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As a Reader, my impression is the Article is already to spammy with information with what may be very temporary promotional programs. There's a guideline somewhere I read about how Wikipedia is "Not for Promotion", or words to that effect. Sorry no explicit link. If I were interested in reading an Encyclopedic Article on Sun Country, I'd want interesting information about the Airlines itself (however you define it, which admittedly could be difficult to pin down) vs. "Current Prices" information. Second, you can easily see who reverts your several edits, and they give some reason why. If that's not enough, you could just ask them. Finally I'm curious why you care to do these kinds of edits to this specific Wikipedia Article. Do you have some connection to the business that you may need to disclose? I just checked your Talk Page, and it looks a bit like a duck.Tym Whittier (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree the article is absolutely spammy with some information and over the last year I have been editing it on and off to try and make it more current, and informative. Yes I have been discussing that with someone on my talk page. What does "looks a bit like a duck" mean? Raine004 (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A) Raine004 declared no present nor former affiliation, paid or otherwise, with any airline. B) Pointing out that a not-accepted or deleted article or new content to an article is like another article that exists is not a valid argument (and sometimes results in deletion of the example, too). C) The SkyMiles article is about a rewards program; what you added was a description of an awards program in an article about an airline. The latter is promotional, the former not. David notMD (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @David notMD:, this makes sense. So it does not matter if the rewards program is part of the airline itself? It is considered promotional because of the inclusion of prices? Raine004 (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

In looking at the history of the article, there has been back and forth on content that some editors thought information and others promotional. I shortened the Frequent flyers section to what I thought was sufficient. Prices are subject to change, and thus not useful for an encyclopedia. As an extreme example, there would be no point in providing prices of airfares. David notMD (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it, Raine004: Wikipedia is interested in what independent sources say about things, not about what the subject says about itself. If somebody wholly unconnected with the airline chose to write an article about the rewards programme (not just a passing mention, not an article based on a press release, and not just a general article about different rewards programme, but for some reason decided that this particular airline's rewards programme was worthy of discussion) then there might well be a case for the article on the airline talking about it. But if there is nothing published about it beyond what the airline says, then no. (This is essentially the definition of notable: that policy applies to articles, not to information mentioned in articles; but I think it is a useful guide here). --ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi friends! I'm totally new to Wikipedia. Thank you for inviting me to join this! Excited to learn more!

How do I add a photo to a infobox? I wrote a new page about a public figure whose talk I recently attended and who I admire. There are lots of photos of him on Google, but I'm not sure how to properly use it in Wikipedia :)

This is the full URL of the page I'm asking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Harald_Link

Thank you!

ChulaUniversitySoph2020 (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello ChulaUniversitySoph2020, and welcome to the Teahouse! WP:s basic assumption is that any random pic you find on google is copyrighted and so we can't use it. There are exceptions, but it's likely to be true about anything you find on google of a living person. More at Wikipedia:Image use policy. If you or someone you know have taken a photo of this person, that can be used, the photographer should then upload it via the process started here: . Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Awesome and thank you very much!! Will see if I can find anyone who knows him better or has a photo. Might be tough...lol ChulaUniversitySoph2020 (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am writing an article(draft) about Mikko S. Niemelä and want to cite a patent he holds in the article. Can someone please guide me, how i can do that using visual editor. Tasneem.tech (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Tasneem.tech

You may find this guide useful Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide#Editing references, though I see it's not been updated recently. You can follow the mediawiki link for more thorough explanation. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tasneem.tech. I have been using Visual Editor for most of my edits but I do not know any feature that allows you to reference patents. If you haven't found information that could help you in this area, you can use its Basic citation option. Find a Wikipedia article that references a patent and cite the details in the Basic form using that format. As an alternative, you can check the markup template for patent citation here. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I was reading an article where there was a section with about ~500 words and only two sources that are just cited throughout. I was thinking that seems a lot for not many sources and that it should be condensed (and it can be). Would it be fair if I condensed it down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.0.120 (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hard to say without having seen the article, but you can always try WP:BOLD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I just read that in order to write a bibliography of a notable person, I need to have at least three high-level references, but 'company's websites and press releases' cannot be accepted. Could you please explain what you precisely mean? For example, I was wondering whether newspaper articles could be included or not.

Best regards.

Hello Claudio.delnobletto, did you perhaps mean biography? In short, reliable newspaper/magazine articles/books that are independent of the subject but talk about it in some detail is what you are after. More guidance at Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I am very new to this, so I appreciate your patience. I am hoping to get some understanding on why I was denied the publishing of Borgia Infami: An Opera in Two Acts . The rejection cited lack of verifiable sources, so I've added a few more and added in-text citations, but I am hoping to get some direction on if what I have added is enough. I don't want the content to get deleted if I try to publish it again. The topic was produced by the company I work for in collaboration with a local university, Washington University, St. Louis (Wash U). Wash U asked us to create a Wikipedia page for the opera in honor of their former longtime professor and composer of the opera Harold Blumenfeld. It was only produced once, aside for the partial production in New York in 2003 (which I cited in the initial submission), so there isn't a lot of literature on the opera or is productions. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winteroperastl (talk • contribs) 20:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Winteroperast1 and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, both you and Wash U misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not their business, or yours, to create or edit an article about an opera they and you produced: you are not forbidden from doing so, but you are discouraged because of your conflict of interest (and if you are doing this in connection with a paid position, as it sounds like you are, you must comply with WP:PAID). An article is not created (or, for that matter, deleted) just because the subject, or somebody associated with the subject, wants that. It can be created if the consensus is that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - essentially, that several people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish at some length about it, in reliable places.

Note also that creating an article "in honor of" somebody is both inconsistent with the purposes of Wikipedia, and not necessarily a good idea: see WP:PRIDE and WP:OWN for why not.

So, to answer your question directly: after reading about COI and PAID and made declarations as appropriate, you will need to find places where people wholly unconnected with the opera, the company, and the university, have written at length about the opera. I'm not sure that any of your current citations are satisfactory: the Wash U one isn't independent, the Opera America one is anonymous, and I would expect that the material came from the company; and blogs are hardly ever regarded as reliable sources. It is possible the STL Jewish Light piece is satisfactory (I can't view it in Europe), but not if it is based on a press release or interview. Actually the Steve Callahan review (linked from the Blog, but not referenced in your draft) looks promising. But you really need at least one more source of comparable quality. --ColinFine (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Winteroperastl - First, please sign any comments you make on talk pages with four tildes, (~~~~). Second, since you work for the company attempting to create this article, please see WP:PAID, and follow the steps there to declare yourself. Also be aware of WP:COI. The fact that it had a very limited run, and there isn't much reference to it out there, might indicate that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and pages created as memorials are simply not allowed. Finally, articles which consist almost entirely of plot summaries are not a good thing. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine and Onel5969 for clearing this up for me! I will take this information back to the university and the company. I also appreciate your posting the links for reference, I will use them to explain the guidelines to both. Best, Winteroperastl (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone deleted a picture of the subject included though it was wellout of copywright - a newspaper drawing from the South wales Daily News 18 January 1895. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane Coffey (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Diane Coffey: Welcome to the Teahouse, and may I just prod you in future to not only sign every one of your talk page messages with four tildes (like this: ~~~~), but also to remember to include a link to the page you are actually asking about? These two things make the work for Teahouse hosts so much easier. Luckily you have only really made edits to one article, so I can see what happened to the image at Hannah Winbolt which was deleted. If you go to this link you'll see that it was deleted because it was attributed to a modern newspaper. There is a detailed explanation of the deletion rationale on that page. So presumably you didn't make it clear when you uploaded it that the image was no longer in copyright? Once again, not everyone can be a mind-reader, so maybe they just assumed it was copyright. My advice would be too politely reach out to the deleting editor at Wikimedia Commons, explaining (and linking to) the source and asking them to reinstate the image and ask what you need to do in future to ensure old images aren't deleted. I probably can't offer much more help than this as I'm unable to see the deleted image, and Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are completely separate. But I hope this reply is nevertheless of some use. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) commons:File:Hannah Winbolt (1).jpg was deleted by Ronhjones. The old file page can only be seen by Commons administrators but the picture may have been undated. Ronhjones will be notified of my mention. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Diane Coffey: Replying at your commons talk page c:User talk:Diane Coffey Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi friends, I hope you all are good. As i am new to wikipedia, after learning and reading all the general things about wikipedia's policy and rules, i've started to edit on wikipedia smoothly. So, i want to contribute more on wikipedia. so, where can i find the pages which are not completed well or (error). And i also want to know about new pending changes reviewer and rollback and to fight against vandalism. So, Who can help and assist me on these things. Please let me know. TheRedBox (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, TheRedBox, and welcome to the Teahouse. Goodness, that's a whole load of questions. Let's see:

• With over 5 million articles in mainspace, there are innumerable ways that pages are incomplete. A really great way to find the type of work that interests you can be found at Wikipedia:Task Center.
• Many WikiProjects exist to work on topic-related articles. These projects often have a table of relevant articles tabulated by importance and quality assessment. Finding articles that have been deemed important, but are still stubs or start-class articles could be another way of finding articles to improve.
• For Rollback, take a look at Wikipedia:Rollback. Whilst it is a 'right' which has to be specially requested, if you have Twinkle enabled in your Preferences, you do have a rollback function there, which should suit in many circumstances.
• Patrolling (checking) newly created pages is done by experienced volunteers - and we need more! See Wikipedia:New pages patrol for more information.
• Fighting vandalism is an ongoing task, and eyes are always needed. See Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools for some useful tools to assist you, or consider joining Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit.

This is, perforce, a brief reply, but unless there are specific questions I think it best to let you visit these links and read more for yourself. From a personal perspective, I found that live correcting of spelling errors (with Lupin's anti-vandal tool) and monitoring recent changes (my favourite settings for this) both provided a range of articles with issues which I sometimes found myself randomly wanting to fix, whether it be improving the style of English, correcting layout and formatting errors, or removing promotional content and checking other contributions that some mischievous editor has made. But we're all different, and there's never a lack of tasks for keen Wikipedians like you to do. Does this answer you adequately? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thankyou Nick Moyes. I hope this all will help me for now. if i need any more assistance i'll definitely ping you. TheRedBox (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• How to use this tool [] can you help me out? TheRedBox (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing, TheRedBox. See Help:Recent changes which explains that this is a live feed of all edits. The link I supplied is a set of settings I use to filter and show only those edits that are quite likely to be vandalism/bad faith edits, or have some other problem. (But that's not to say that they are all bad!!) As I write this, I see that we are at Level 1 vandalism alert (the highest level - I put a little widget on my userpage to flag up what level it's at.) If you click 'live update' you don't need to refresh the page. Those edits which are automatically sensed as 'most likely bad faith edits' are in highlighted with colours ( see explanation at top of that page).

Each row is one edit made to one page, linking to a 'diff', page history, the article name, the editor's username, and their edit summary (if given), and a figure to show by how much an article has increased or decreased in byte size by that edit. By right-clicking the word 'diff' you open a new window showing the difference between that and the previous edit (changes are shown in bold type). You then need to assess whether it was legitimate, good faith unhelpful or vandalism/disruptive, and act accordingly. (Subtle example here; blatant example here; genuine edit here) I use Twinkle to leave warnings and welcome messages to users whose edits have been problematic, but it's up to you to determine whether the edit was reasonable (many are!), so always assume good faith and don't revert/rollback an editor unnecessarily, and always leave an edit summary if you're reverting but it isn't pure vandalism. It cause offence when someone reverts an edit, so it's essential to explain why you've taken the action you have. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that every IP editor is a vandal - huge numbers make great contribution. I often word search on edit summary terms like "typo" or "I fixed", or look for articles on schools. It's surprising how many bad editors like to announce their stupidity by writing words like 'I fixed it' - so these are helpful clues to look for. I also look for size changes of "(0)", as many silly people think it's clever just to change one letter or make no net change in the belief we won't notice. But we do - and you can help with this. Just to repeat - go careful at first, and if you're on a mobile do be aware it's very easy to hit 'rollback' in error, so be prepared to undo your own edits if you think you've made a mistake. An apology never goes amiss if you do make an error of judgement. Does this make any sense? Give it a try and let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help nick i did some changes according to your suggestions and previous link you provided which were likely very bad faith and found that like they edit on 0 and 1 single letter and make it other spam words too. I reverted some unusual edits. I think i likely did well and i'll look after what you have taught me here. TheRedBox (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

All this is fine in theory but the fact is that the encyclopaedia has now been taken over by vandals and trolls and administrators are ensuring that there's no chance for the rest of us to edit. The entire reference desk and the Helpdesk are all protected. See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_855#R/D help. The vandalism is juvenile. It's not the stuff that should hang around in the revision history but it's not "outing" which requires immediate revision deletion. Administrators' claims that they have to protect because the cleanup is a full time job are untrue. Revision delete at leisure - the stuff will disappear from the visible page within minutes without their assistance. 2A00:23C4:5D03:E100:305F:D789:20A:9B8 (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)