Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 June 9

= June 9 =

Sockpuppet investigation on IPs
I've got a message, asking me to launch an SPI on two IPs but I'm not quite sure if investigation is really needed since these two IPs simply have almost the same behaviors. Another thing is that the reported IPs, Special:Contributions/111.65.56.243 and Special:Contributions/116.89.21.207 (if they are the same person) have been keeping adding specific content to artists without references for months. In fact, I can hardly verify what he/she added in most cases by Googling them. 116.89 was blocked for 1 year for the same behavior on Chinese Wikipedia a month ago. Sorry but I'm not familiar with reporting long-term abuse on English Wikipedia. Could you please guide me to some place so that sysops can have a look on this case. Thanks!--Tiger (Talk) 03:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, you are not under any obligation to do anything on Wikipedia, and that includes filling out admin cases paperwork. (Accusing someone else of sockpuppetry without evidence is a personal attack, however.)
 * The way to go on en-wp is to fill a report at WP:SPI listing out all suspected accounts and the connecting evidence. If the evidence is obvious enough, the accounts get blocked immediately; if it is somewhat indicative but not conclusive, a checkuser will access some technical information that can help determine if the accounts are related; if the evidence is really weak, the case will be closed with no action. So even if the case is really obvious, you should file at SPI if it is a sockpuppet thing. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I've just filed it to SPI and got a "too old" response. I have been watching this anonymous user for months simply because he keeps editing in a problematic way for months and using the same IP for months. But I got responses like "stale report" twice simply because this IP user had not edited for days when I reported him.
 * Seems that my language is not precise enough for others to understand, is it? Or I just did not report it in a correct way?--Tiger (Talk) 15:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

How would one credit this?
Hi, so I have been working on putting a banner on my user page and talk page (located here) and I cant figure out how to make it so the image links to its page on Commons when clicked. I got the code for the banner from a commons user's userpage, and made some adjustments to it (like changing the image) but I don't know how to code in html (its in html right?) so I don't know how to make it link to that page. Does anyone know how to do that? TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost all pages on Wikipedia, including User pages, are coded in Wikicode, not HTML. While it is possible to embed HTML in Wikicode, this feature is not used in the vast majority of pages. Yours is the first page I've seen that is "Pure" HTML (actually, it's technically still embedded in Wikicode.) Go back and check the page you used for inspiration. It probably uses Wikicode, but you somehow looked at the rendered HTML, possibly using your browser's "view source" button. The "source" you see that way is not the wikicode, but is instead the HTML that the Wikipedia server generated from the wikicode when you go to a wikipedia page. If you do in fact know what you are doing and you really did mean the use HTML, then you will need to learn HTML. Basically you will need to use HTML link syntax. -Arch dude (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is where I found it- it seems to be in pure HTML. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It also somehow got even more confusing- I managed to make a link to the actual image appear on the template itself, but when I transcluded (is that the word?) it to my user and talk pages, it wont appear... weird. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: I somehow managed to get it to display, but only when I copied and pasted the code from the original creators template page for this on Wikipedia, and not on Commons... weird. In any case- fixed! TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

List_of_golf_courses_in_the_United_Kingdom
I would like the reference of The Wesley Golf Society in the Berkshire list of Golf Courses to point to ints website www.wesleygolf.org.uk

www.wesleygolf.org.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid Barker (talk • contribs) 13:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ that would be spamming. Theroadislong (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Insufficient definition
What is there to be done about an article that very insufficiently defines its subject? The problem has already been addressed by several users on the talk page, and the article also has a bunch of "unsourced" tags already.

Should more tags be added? Or are there some experts anywhere around who could help? --217.239.0.161 (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

, the article links to lambdacism, which is tagged as confusing. There are hits on Google books for rhotacism defect, so the term does seem to exist.TSventon (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi TSventon, thanks for your reply!
 * I never doubted that the term exists. The point I was trying to make is that the article does not at all define its subject: "rhotacism ... is the inability to pronounce or difficulty in pronouncing the sound r."
 * That's just pure nonsense. There is no such thing as "the sound r". There are many different "sounds r" depending on what language and dialect you are talking about.
 * Then there is this completely random list of people who allegedly have this problem, most of them unsourced and probably just chance finds on Youtube or in movies - that is to say: original research at best. And it remains completely unclear which sound r these people cannot pronounce.
 * --217.239.0.161 (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * To all participants: Attempts to reach consensus on article content belong on the article's talk page, not the help desk. If you cannot reach consensus there, then proceed to WP:DISPUTE. But try hard to at least clarify your points of agreement and disagreement on the talk page first. In this case it's clear that all parties are trying hard to build a better encyclopedia, so WP:AGF. You may also try to find experts on the talk pages of the projects associated with this article. -Arch dude (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)