Help desk
< August 5	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 7 >

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.

August 6[edit]

An added link created two citations[edit]

There are two citations for the same link on this page, and I'm not sure what referent is wrong. Twelve Reasons to Die II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustindGoodman (talk • contribs)

@JustindGoodman: Which link please? --Thnidu (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, User:JustindGoodman is adding linkspam references to his own website.--ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page and URL renaming issue[edit]

We are IFA Paris, an international fashion school. We have three international locations, so we have our Wikipedia page in these three languages:

IFA Paris

This page we have recently edited and everything is satisfactory.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFA_Paris This page we will updated in the near future.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fashion_Academy The problem is with this page, that the title is different, it should also be “IFA Paris” in the URL as well as on the page, just like the Chinese and English versions. We tried editing it but it doesn’t let us change the page name or URL, we just can change the text. Can you please rename it to “IFA Paris”, also make the URL like the others?

That would be great, then we could get to work in editing and completing this page. It is also important to us to have the correct name as our Wikipedia page is shown quite high in organic search results when searching for our brand name. Furthermore, Google displays International Fashion Academy in the local business and maps, and not IFA Paris. They take it from Wikipedia, so we must change it to our correct brand name.

Thanks so much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikki38394724 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On your user talk page you have been told about Wikipedia's guidance on conflict of interest. The English Wikipedia page on your organisation has no references to independent reliable sources to demonstrate that your organisation is notable in Wikipedia's terms, so unless it is improved in that regard it is liable to be deleted. We at the English Wikipedia can't do anything about the French Wikipedia. It is possible that they have their own conventions regarding article titles. To change an article title, the process is to move it. The French equivalent is Aide:Comment renommer une page. - David Biddulph (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged IFA Paris for speedy deletion. I searched for something to evidence notabilty to give it a fighting chance but couldn't come up with anything. Even if it is notable, someone needs to start again.--ukexpat (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to move user sandbox talk page[edit]

I recently created an article by moving it from my user sandbox. When doing this, I checked move associated talk page. Therefore, when I go to my user sandbox talk page, it directs to the talk page for the article I created. Any advice on how I can make it such that the talk page for my user sandbox is independent and does not redirect to the article talk page? Thanks in advance. Ergo Sum (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergo Sum: You just need to edit the talk page of the sandbox and remove the redirect template. - NQ (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NQ: Done. Thank you for your help. Ergo Sum (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Signature[edit]

Can someone make me a custom signature? I would just like it to be green and possibly a little larger as far as text size. I looked on the signature page and didnt get it so please dont direct me somewhere. Thanks The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor of All Things Wikipedia, how about '''The Editor of All Things Wikipedia''' which gives The Editor of All Things Wikipedia? Note if you use it, be sure to include the ''' in your copy-paste. I'm hesitant to make it bigger with regards to actual font-size as that can result in bad readability given the length of your username. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 06:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much I think a page with good instructions should be made on this. I will be sending a cookie! The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC) to RegistryKey[reply]

RegistryKey, Is there a way that this can be automatically put in when i use the 4 swirly dashes to sign my posts? And also can it work as a link? The Editor of All Things Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeditorofallthingswikipedia (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theeditorofallthingswikipedia Yep. Go to your preferences page and look down at the Signature section. Copy-paste the code I gave you then check the Treat as wiki markup box. Don't forget to add a bit of code for your talk page as well. This will automatically make the formatted signature appear when you sign with 4 tildes, and it will also make the links work so that your username is clickable to your userpage, and the talk bit goes to your talk page. Example, my code is: [[User:RegistryKey|'''RegistryKey''']][[User_talk:RegistryKey|'''(RegEdit)''']] which gives me proper formatting, signature interaction, and proper linking within the signature guidelines. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 07:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The exact code you want to put in the Preferences box is

'''[[User:Theeditorofallthingswikipedia|<span style="color:green">The Editor of All Things Wikipedia</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Theeditorofallthingswikipedia|talk]])

, which will produce The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (talk). And by the way, the "swirly dashes" are called "tildes". — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And i knew whatbthey were called, I just wanted to make sure I wasnt misunderstood by anyone who didnt. Everyone was a real help! The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I ended up coming up with this:

'''[[User:Theeditorofallthingswikipedia|<span style="color:green">The Editor of All Things Wikipedia </span>]]'''<sup>'''[[User talk:Theeditorofallthingswikipedia|<span style="color:green">《Talk》</span>]]'''</sup></span>

which shows as: The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》. When I put that exact text into the signature box in preferences, it just comes out as the first text and not the second custom signature. I tried it with and without that checkbox checked underneath where i enter my signature in preferences. Why isnt it working? Can someone edit it to work if thats the issue? Please Help. Thanks The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 To: Bilorv RegistryKey

@Theeditorofallthingswikipedia: No-one but you can see or edit your preferences. Your signature seems to be working; when you say "it just comes out as the first text", are you referring to the "Signature:" box or the "Existing signature:" line? The box is supposed to remain in bare wikitext so you can alter your signature, but the "Existing signature" line should show "The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》". The checkbox should be checked. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that no one can edit my preferences. I meant that when i Put the raw template above (first text) into the signature box in preferences, It comes out the same when i do the 4 tildes (its not the finished signature but the raw text. So it shows my signature as raw text not the green name.) It just worked because I put it in manually and didnt sign with the 4 tildes. So I thought that maybe the raw text/template I came up with above needed editing in order to work when i put it into my signature box in preferences. So do you know why its not working? Bilorv thanks The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind it wasnt working because the code was missing the  that goes in the beginning. Thanks for all your help The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 21:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I'm glad you've fixed the problem. Tell me if you ever need any more help with signatures. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Details on the Medochemie Page (Medochemie)[edit]

There is updated information regarding the Medochemie's Pharmaceutical page (Medochemie) retrieved from their webpage (http://www.medochemie.com/) please see below:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.236.49 (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly the help page is not the place to post page content. Secondly, content from an organisation's website is not normally written in a form appropriate for an encyclopedia. Thirdly, but most importantly, if the information has previously been published on another website, it would be a copyright violation to post it here, unless the copyright has been unambiguously released, so I have redacted it from here. If you have specific changes to propose, please do so at the article's talk page (which is currently blank). - David Biddulph (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One reference covering several sentences or even a whole paragraph...[edit]

(If this is better placed on another helpdesk/talk page, please say.) I recently discovered a template called {{clarify span}}, which has the useful attribute of subtly highlighting exactly which text needs clarifying within a paragraph (example here). It got me thinking about whether a similar thing exists for citation templates, to show that e.g. several sentences at the start of a paragraph are covered by a single citation. Several times in the past I have in the past seen {{citation needed}} templates added in the middle of a paragraph which is supported by one reference correctly placed at the end—obviously in perfectly good faith, given that the refs in question were not online, but incorrectly. So, three questions:

Does such a template exist for citations?
Would it actually be desirable, or would it look unnecessarily obtrusive and therefore detrimental to the article?

Thanks for any thoughts! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no such template exists. There's {{citation needed span}} but no opposite equivalent to show what text a reference covers. Some editors like to repeat citations for every new idea / every sentence, to show that the entire text is supported by citation X rather than just the last one—especially when using direct quotes from sources. Personally, I only put one inline citation at the very end of the material it covers (occasionally even to source multiple paragraphs), unless there are bits of the text being supported by other sources; I think it just disrupts the flow of a paragraph if there's a small ^[1] at the end of every single sentence. If you see {{citation needed}} templates where they aren't needed, you can just remove them: perhaps adding another citation in the middle of the paragraph or clarifying further (e.g. adding another reference, specifying a page number, perhaps even quoting from the book) might be appropriate, depending on the context. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.". I read that to say that there must be an adjacent inline cite for any direct quote, and an end-of-paragraph cite isn't good enough. Otherwise it is a matter of editorial judgement, but remember that new content not supported by the same source might easily be added by a later editor. Using a cite at the end of each sentence or two is IMO not a bad idea. @Bilorv:, @Hassocks5489: DES ^(talk) 16:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: But if an entire paragraph is sourced by reference X, then putting an reference at the end of the paragraph will be adjacent to the text. I don't think your method of sourcing is a bad idea at all, but I don't think it is supported by that interpretation (based on the same interpretation, but taken further, one could extend that to having an inline citation after every single clause of every single sentence and before any conjunctions; someone might add something from a new source mid-sentence).

But there's no harm in taking extra care when it comes to material that has to have an inline citation: I was suppose I was thinking of articles where there aren't any general references and inline citations are used throughout. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, As for content where a single source supports an entire paragraph, i agree that sourcing every sentence is not required, although I think it may be a good idea. But for direct quotations, i think that there really should be a cite for every quote. I think the policy requires that, but this very policy was recently debated by ARBCOM, and an over-zealous enforcer was desysoped. I was also thinking of article already using inline citations completely, but not explicitly sorcing every quotation. DES ^(talk) 16:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. In the past, on the fairly rare occasions I have written a paragraph which uses (say) just one page of one book as a reference (I usually use multiple sources per article, and even per paragraph), I have tended to repeat the same reference every couple of sentences, up to a maximum of say 3 or 4 instances. I'm happy to continue doing that. Just seeing that template made me wonder, though! Also I was looking at one of my partly-completed articles in userspace, which has a paragraph with six sentences and a lot of facts/statistics but which currently only has one reference near the end (because all the stats are sourced to a particular table on one page of a book), and it struck me that I could be repeating the same reference 6 or 7 times consecutively if I put a ref after every sentence/statistic—which might be considered excessive. (The paragraph in question is the fifth one here, starting "At the start of the NSE era in 1986...".) Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Jimmy Gauld[edit]

Reference help requested. He died. The line I wanted to enter was - Jimmy Gauld died in December 2004. He was electrocuted at his home in London.

I also wanted to amend the top right-hand box to show his date of death and location.

I got the info from The Scotsman 2/8/15 and the current Swindon FC website of 'Where are they now? I can email these pages to you if you like. Thanks, Mal Jefferson (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found one reference to the year of death and added it to the article. If you have additional references please post them at Talk:Jimmy Gauld. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Grading Scheme[edit]

I have questions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Grading scheme. The first question is whether those assessments really have any effect, or are simply part of an overall effort, not very consistently used, to assign quality assessments to articles. The second question, more specifically, is that of another editor, which is whether an article is likely to be deleted because it is Start-Class. (My answer is that I have never seen an article nominated for deletion, nor actually deleted, only because it was Start-Class. That assessment, in my view, means that expansion of the article is requested.) The background is that I reviewed an article at Articles for Creation, and assessed it at Start-Class. I expect that if I decline an article, I may get questions about that. I have put a talk page message on my talk page saying to take questions about declined articles to the Teahouse, which is the usual forum for discussing declined articles. In this case I got a question, on the originator's talk page, pinging me, asking whether the Start-Class meant that his article was likely to be deleted. My answer was that it was not, and that most new articles get that class. (Some AFC articles are stub-class, and still get accepted, and will not be deleted, although a few stubborn editors nominate articles for deletion because they don't like stubs.) It is my understanding, and I would like to know whether this is true or false, that the grading scheme, which extends to all articles, not just AFC articles, really is just an overall rating scheme that has very little to do with deletion. (Also, in the AFC assessments that an AFC reviewer does, should GA and FA even be available?) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, did I make a mistake in assigning the article to Start-Class, and should I have assigned it to C-Class (if it matters)? The article was Gold Coast (magazine). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon The grading scheme is common to most wiki-projects, and an attempt is made to use it project-wide, not very consistently. I have never heard of an article being deleted just because it was start-class, or even stub-class, and I would oppose any such nom I saw at AfD. AfC reviewers often require a higher standard than what would pass AfD, and properly so IMO. As to whether your example is "Start" or "C"-class, the main difference is that Start is "quite incomplete" and "Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more." while C is " substantial," and "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.". Also C-class should include reasonable sourcing. Actually I suspect that pretty much all submissions that are properly accepted by AfC could reasonably be graded as C-class. DES ^(talk) 16:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that some projects, such as WP:WikiProject Military History, have their own standards, and may also have an A-Class. I will take your advice and in the future will assess nearly all accepted AFC articles as C-class. Should I change the article to C-class? As to not deleting an article because it is Start-Class, I think that you and I are saying the same thing. We are also saying that no article that has properly passed AFC review should reasonably be nominated for deletion. That would mean either that the reviewer was too lax, or that the nominator is too harsh or is trying to make a point. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, Robert McClenon, but I think that at B-class and below, WP:WikiProject Military History uses the same standards. Also, i think that until at least B-class is reached, the grades don't matter much. GA and above have more or less formal process, those matter, B-class matters a bit. I think in general we agree, although I could imagine an editor (particularly a subject-matter-knowledgeable editor) doing a more through review of sources than an AfC reviewer really could, and nominating for deletion on that basis, or using AfC for an enforced merge. DES ^(talk) 17:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you appear to have been saying above is that an AFC reviewer should consider whether there is any plausible reason why an editor could nominate the article for deletion. (Implausible reasons, of course, cannot be predicted, and are a problem with the nominator, not the article, as are revenge reasons.) If there is any plausible reason why an editor could nominate the article for deletion, the reviewer should either pass with a comment or decline. I agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that there is a technical reason why the assessment menu for an AFC accept includes GA and FA status, because those are impossible for an article being accepted for AFC. I suppose it is harmless to leave them, since experienced editors should know what GA and FA are. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the list displayed is simply copied from the list of available classes, and not specialized for AfC. I suppose in theory a draft could be developed to GA status under AfC, but I've never heard of it happening. I did mean nto suggest that an editor knowledgable about a topic might have good reasons to nominate an article that properly passed AfC for deletion, but this should be rare. (and of course if the creator is later found to be a sock of a previously banned user, well....) DES ^(talk) 22:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The list is clearly just copied from the list of classes, because it is often easier to use an existing pick list than to create a new one. (When I was a software tester, I would have marked the inclusion of inapplicable entries, due to use of an existing pick list, as a very-low-priority defect that would be ignored but documented.) Although an editor could create a GA-quality article in draft space, he or she cannot create a GA in draft space, because GA review is a separate process. Also, it is true that a knowledgable reviewer could nominate an article that passed AFC review for deletion for some reason not known to the AFC reviewer, such as that it contained subtle lies or pseudoscience, or, as you said, was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How Articles Get into Mainspace[edit]

Not entirely on the subject, I am aware of three ways that articles get into article space. First, they can be written in draft space and submitted for AFC, which we discussed above, and then they pass the bar of third-party review. Second, experienced editors can compose the article in user space, and, if they are reasonably sure that the article meets the criteria for article space (even if it is a sourced stub), they can move it to article space. Third, an editor can compose the article directly in article space. This is possible, but, in my view, a mistake, because, in my view, it is not reasonable to expect to be able to complete a properly sourced article on a single edit. As a result, the article in progress is likely to be tagged for speedy deletion. There have been proposals to have a tag for such incomplete articles that request that the article not be tagged because it is in progress. I have opposed those proposals, because there is no need to compose an article in article space when user space is available. Are there any other ways that an article can get into article space? Is AFC the one that poses the most demanding bar? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another method I have seen used: find an obscure article in mainspace, with a title that could be used for the topic of interest, on a non-notable topic, with no recent edits. Replace its contents. Then move it so its title better reflects its new subject. Maproom (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the value in doing this, and I would discourage it. DES ^(talk) 22:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But if someone's objective is to create an article on a new topic, while avoiding the usual scrutiny, he may think of this. As I said, I have seen it done (and contributed to its removal). Maproom (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"it is not reasonable to expect to be able to complete a properly sourced article on a single edit" – Maybe not a reasonable expectation of others, but something that those who prefer to do shouldn't be discouraged from. All but one of the articles I've created have been written directly in article space, in the edit window, before pressing save. Others may like to do things differently but take a look at, for example, this first revision. That content doesn't come from a userspace page or even a Word document; it was composed entirely in the edit window.

Splits are also a way articles get into mainspace; what's happening technically is just a user pasting something directly into article space, but I would distinguish this from the third way you mentioned because the content is already available on Wikipedia, just under a different title in the article namespace. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a split is a different way to create an article because it was previously in article space. If you can actually create an article that is satisfactory for mainspace in a single edit, more power to you. I won't try to do that, and will use user space. I still don't see the need for a flag to request that an incomplete article in user space be spared from speedy deletion while it is in progress, precisely because one can use user space for the purpose (and many of the criteria for speedy deletion in article space do not even apply in user space). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, the template {{under construction}} had existed for years. I think it already existed when i first edited. It could be used to signal that the initial stages of drafting in article space are in progress. New page patrollers aren't bound to respect that, but I might well decline or at least delay implementing a speedy tag placed while a UC tag is present, if it was last edited less than an hour before the tag was added.

The NPP page advises patrollers not to tag new articles with most tags (except copyvios and attack pages) if the article is less than 10-15 minutes old. Many editors can get a page to a sufficient shape to avoid speedy deletion in 10-15 minutes. (Not all NP people comply with this advice, however.)

Some experienced editors, including myself, create new articles in draft space rather than user space but without tagging for AFC, and move to mainspace when the draft seems ready. In effect no different than starting in userspace. DES ^(talk) 22:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and looked at the articles that I had created and the only one in the last 6 months that I think I created at non stub level in one edit was Face Off (season 9) where I basically took the version of Face Off (season 8) at the same point before the season, changed the names and dates, verified a few other things and dropped it into mainspace.Naraht (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emails Of Wikipedia articles[edit]

may I email an article.from Wikipedia to a friend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.232.213 (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course!--ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't try to email the actual article, as you may have problems with links, pics, etc. Instead, I suggest you send a link to the article. It's also possible to send a link to the article as it currently is (or was), so that no subsequent changes will appear. Ask us if you want to know how. StuRat (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable X, include references to descriptions that don't include X?[edit]

For Wikipedia articles that are lists of people based on a particular award... (So let's say Valedictorians of Harvard) A page on the Harvard website lists them and what they've done. Samanatha Jones-Orange is listed on the Harvard website as being the Secretary of the National Council of Catholics and Buddhists. Is it appropriate to add additional secondary sources that say that Samantha Jones-Orange is the Secretary of the NCCB if they don't say anything about being Valedictorian of Harvard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)

Issues on my page[edit]

Hi,

I got some issues on my biographical page that I can't correct. This is my page: Caroline Edelstam. I provided all citations and references needed, but still I have this issue.Why does the topic of this article not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline?

Thank you for your help in advance.

Waiting for your reply.

Best regards, Caroline Edelstam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Villavillerkulla (talk • contribs) 19:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your page appears to be an autobiography. Wikipedia strongly discourages posting an autobiography, as indicated in the policy cited. More generally, Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy, that discourages editing by editors who have a conflict of interest, which you do. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the general notability guidelines. However, if you can provide the independent reliable sources of your notability, it would be better to add them on the article talk page, Talk: Caroline Edelstam, than to try to add them to the article, for the reasons mentioned above. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recurrent COI and reversion[edit]

This user inserted their own review onto a page, was reverted by ClueBot, and redid the insertion less than half an hour later:

Perhaps they need a Clue-by-Four from an admin. --Thnidu (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This appears to be a strange result by ClueBot. The edit wasn't vandalism, and the purpose of ClueBot is to detect vandalism. However, the edit was a bad edit. Interesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted again and user warned. We should check all their other contributions for reflinkspam.--ukexpat (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All checked, all now gone (I only found one left).

I've asked this here before and seen no answer, so I'll ask it again. When an editor has abused multiple articles in the same way, it is easy but laborious to go through his edit history and deal with the abuse. But it is likely that others will then go through the edit history themselves. Is there a good way to save them the trouble? Maproom (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom, you could make a dummy edit with a summary saying "Checked for linkspam by User:fathead, none found" or the like. Editors who check the history will see it. When there is a major problem, such as a user who has introduced copyvios in large numbers of articles, a specialized project page is often created to divide the work and record what has been done. DES ^(talk) 22:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]