Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 821

How to report a set of suspected IP sockpuppets?
I recently stumbled upon numerous IP accounts, whose IP addresses were in the range  (which, according to WHOIS, belongs to the SoftBank Group of Japan) and whose edits were:


 * mostly made in 2018;
 * often made to overlapping sets of articles;
 * often similar to each other in nature (e.g. inserting unrelated "See also" wikilinks; invoking conspiracy theories, especially re: surveillance, internet, police or military technologies, or about identity politics; expressing anti-Israel, anti-Blair, anti-Muslim, pro-Thatcher or pro-EDL opinions; making disparaging remarks about other editors; pretending to perform anti-vandalism activities; editing their own or each others' talk pages); sorting lists by alphabetical order; and
 * often disruptive (e.g. inserting unsourced or poorly-sourced claims; breaking links; disrupting sentence structure).

These are the accounts meeting this description of which I am aware (maybe more exist; I haven't found them if so):

The similarity between these accounts' edit histories, and the fact that they all originate from the same organisation's IP range, suggests to me that a single person may be responsible for them (with that person being probably either a customer or employee of, or a contractor for, SoftBank). I.e. in addition to the obvious disruptive editing (trolling; vandalism, even) this seems to me to be a plausible case of IP socking.

A few of these accounts' edits were made to Long-term_abuse/Hydro_dot_net, and having read that page, I think that the IP addresses above may well be sockpuppets of the "hydro dot net" editor. I am therefore pinging User:Intgr, who has curated that page. I'm also pinging User:KatnissEverdeen who is generally active against vandalism and recently reported one of the above IPs, and who therefore might be interested in this discussion.

My immediate concerns are that:


 * a number of disruptive edits made by these accounts seem not to have been reverted, and may therefore still be polluting Wikipedia (is there a way can they be reverted en masse? Last time I checked, there wasn't...); and
 * although a few of the IP addresses have received temporary blocks, this clearly has not stopped the disruptive editing: a more extensive intervention would seem to be required.

IIRC, I haven't previously had much success reporting IP socking at WP:SPI, so I thought I should probably check in here at the Teahouse first, both to see whether anyone else agrees with me that these seem to be socks of "hydro dot net", and anyhow to check whether I should report my concerns about these IPs to WP:SPI, or to WP:ANI, or to WP:ANV, or to some other noticeboard.

Please WP:PING me if you reply, as I am not watching this page. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Update: I have compared the list of IPs above with the list at Long-term_abuse/Hydro_dot_net. The following IPs are on both lists:
 * So, if I am right that the IPs I mentioned are socks of each other, and if User:Intgr is right about about "hydro dot net"'s socks, then it would seem that I am right to think that this suspected IP socker is indeed "hydro dot net". Zazpot (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, if I am right that the IPs I mentioned are socks of each other, and if User:Intgr is right about about "hydro dot net"'s socks, then it would seem that I am right to think that this suspected IP socker is indeed "hydro dot net". Zazpot (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello again and welcome back to the Teahouse.
 * First, I've redacted your lists of IP addresses because they were causing a problem for this heavily used page.
 * Second, while I commend your zeal, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand IP socking. Since IP addresses are not necessarily permanently associated with an individual, the fact that multiple IP addresses show similar patterns of editing activity is actually expected and not something to become overly suspicious about. Editors are allowed to edit while not logged in and extra scrutiny should be reserved only for cases where there is a pattern of disruptive editing or when there is a pattern that fits a known sock. But, in any case, the place to pursue sockpuppetry is at WP:SPI and 'not' the Teahouse.  — jmcgnh (talk)  (contribs) 03:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , "extra scrutiny should be reserved only for cases where there is a pattern of disruptive editing or when there is a pattern that fits a known sock." Well, those criteria both seem to be true in this instance, which is why I raised it ;)
 * Out of curiosity, what was the problem that was being caused by the IP lists?
 * I'll consider filing an SPI report when I get time, but in the past I've found that to be a burdensome process. If anyone beats me to it, that's fine by me (hint, hint). Zazpot (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The warning looked like:
 * Warning: This page contains too many expensive parser function calls.
 * It should have less than 500 calls, there are now 850 calls.
 * When I went to edit the page. I would have expected it to pop up for you when you went to add the second list.
 * I'm not a pursuer of sockpuppets, I guess they're too devious for me.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , I didn't notice any warnings about function calls when I added the intersection list. Oh well. Thanks anyway for explaining :)
 * Perhaps Intgr or another dedicated pursuer of socks will step in and make good use of my research into the SoftBank IPs. Here's hoping. In the meantime, it's bedtime. Cheers :) Zazpot (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I suspect 58.156.158.18 is another sock of the same master. Similar M.O.: Japanese IP; chattily restored a disruptive edit that had been made by one of the SoftBank suspected socks that I listed earlier. (The edit was later reverted as unsourced by a non-IP editor.) Zazpot (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I didn't have time to look at the entire list, though since you said it's pretty obvious they are editing disruptively you can attempt to have them rangeblocked, meaning that the entire range of IPs will be blocked for disruptive editing and unable to continue vandalizing. Ironically, I recently had to pursue a rangeblock for another group of IPs who were jumping from IP to IP whenever I would even place so much as a warning on their talk page (aka they were trying to avoid detection). I believe (as I *believe* they are part of the IP proxy team on Wikipedia? Could be totally wrong though) may be able to help with that given from the looks of it, it may be an open proxy? Anyways best of luck and let me know if you need any other help! All the best,  Katniss   May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  14:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks. I'd like to see a rangeblock, too. I fear however that SPI admins will balk at this, because the range is so large that the risk of blocking legitimate users is high: potentially an entire  range for the IPs I posted earlier in this thread, plus additional large ranges for the other ISPs used by "hydro dot net". (I don't know if there are (m)any legitimate edits to Wikipedia being made from other IPs in those ranges: only a CheckUser would be able to see that, I guess.) A compromise - if technically possible - would be per-article rangeblocks: this would at least protect the many articles known to have been disruptively edited by these IPs, though it would not stop them from vandalising other articles.
 * In order to file a really comprehensive SPI report, it would probably be useful to compile a table (a database or graph, really) correlating each of the suspect IPs with each of its edits, noting at least the following data:
 * whether the edit was disruptive;
 * which page was affected;
 * when the edit occurred; and
 * whether the edit remains un-reverted.
 * That way, the pattern of edits would become clearer: it would be easier to see which articles are most at risk from this presumed sock-master (e.g. Toronto van attack was disruptively edited by several of the suspect IPs), and which IP addresses/ranges are most likely to be worth blocking.
 * This would be a substantial amount of work if done manually. Certainly, I don't have time for it at the moment, and I suspect that is true of most editors, even ones who are very dedicated anti-vandalists. Based on some of the IPs' edits (they appear to have an interest in cyber-crime and asymmetrical tactics), I suspect the sock-master is well aware of the disparity in cost between "attacker" and "defenders" in this case, and is quite consciously taking advantage of it.
 * Pinging User:Edward, User:Deryck_Chan, User:Charles Matthews and User:Rich_Farmbrough: you all have an interest in automation and in Wikipedia's administration. Do you know of (or know someone who may know of) an existing tool for (semi-)automatically collating the sort of data mentioned above, to reduce the burden on the "defence" side? Also, given that it is essentially semantic data, and that it would be great to be able to query it with SPARQL, do you think WikiData might be a reasonable place to store the data. Better still, is there already a SPARQL endpoint for Wikipedia's edit logs?
 * Do you think I should ping Magnus, too, given his interest in creating semi-automation tools to assist with Wikipedia and WikiData? I doubt that this will be the last extensive sock-master that Wikipedia encounters, so a tool to help deal with this sort of thing (e.g. to help ordinary editors like me to affordably file really useful SPI reports against suspected sock-masters with long edit histories) would seem worth creating, if it does not already exist.
 * All helpful answers/suggestions welcome! Zazpot (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * . Suggest you try mail to with this. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * thanks for the suggestion. I have left a note on WTT's talk page. Zazpot (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any automated tools to generate reports about IP contributions, sorry! In this case we have POV pushers who use a range of rotating IPs, rather than outright vandalism, so it is difficult to automate the detection of "disruption" meaningfully. I think some tools can check whether an edit has been reverted but I don't remember which tools off the top of my head. Sorry. Deryck C. 16:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Deryck. I think it's fair to call some of the edits, such as this one and this one, outright vandalism.
 * I'm conscious of the difficulty of automating the detection of "disruption", but that wasn't quite what I was asking for. Automating the collation of edit metadata, given an IP range, is much more tractable. Detection of which edits are disruptive could then be semi-automated: show the edit to a human and record their opinion about whether or not it is disruptive. If you do later think of any tools potentially capable of helping with this, please leave a note here. Thanks :) Zazpot (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have added an edit filter to pick up the domain dispute, for this IP range. Let's see what that brings.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC).


 * Thanks, Rich. I wasn't previously aware of edit filters. The edits are potentially diverse enough that they might not trigger a (regex?) filter, but you may well have made something more sophisticated. I doubt it will hurt to have one in place, anyhow. It's good to have your help. Let us know if you catch anything. Zazpot (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, just a quick reply to your message to me above. I'll admit I didn't look super close at the range you specified when I first replied. Upon second glance, I agree it is a pretty huge range and would probably cause legitimate users to be blocked. Blocking by article may also be tedious, as it doesn't really solve the problem and may cause them to move on to other articles. I would agree with the above comments that creating an edit filter would be the best route to go at this point, or potentially making a post at WP:ANI if the issue gets worse in the future. Best wishes, Katniss   May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  20:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Katniss, good to know. (BTW, I altered your comment slightly to follow WP:INDENT, and to change "below" to "above" as you moved your comment to the end of the thread after first posting it. Hope that's OK.) Thanks again, Zazpot (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for looking into this. Yes, it's very likely that we're dealing with the same individual. I've seen the "hydro dot net" IPs making misleading edits to other articles, not related to hydro dot net: edits that don't even appear bad until looking into them in detail -- sometimes citing sources and mispreresenting them, othertimes making small changes to change the meaning of sentences. Feel free to add the IPs to the "long-term abuse" page. We could also rename the the abuse page if you feel its current name is too limiting. -- intgr [talk] 21:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * thanks for seconding my opinion that these IP accounts were being operated by "hydro dot net", and for your invitation to add the IPs to the LTA page. That being so, the LTA page (talk) seems a better venue than the Teahouse for continuing the effort to collate information about this sock, in preparation for another filing with WP:SPI or WP:ANV. So, if anyone else has anything to add, please do it there.


 * To all who helped out here, thank you; and thank you also to the Teahouse for hosting. Zazpot (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Some Merging/Deleting Assistance
There are a few larger-scale edits that I think are worth making, but are beyond the scope of what I usually do on Wikipedia. And I would put in the time to learn the process for suggesting/completing those changes and do it all myself, if not for the fact that I'm about to start my 2nd week of college, after 21 years away, and I am already exhausted and a chapter behind in one class. So I'm hoping someone more experienced would lend a hand on this small project.

1. Right now, step-parent redirects to Stepfather page, while stepparent redirects to the Stepfamily page. My view is they should both direct to Stepfamily. But further, I think that perhaps both the Stepfather and Stepmother pages are unnecessary, as neither contains any information that isn't already in the Stepfamily page, with the exception of cultural and fictional representations of stepfathers and stepmothers. My suggestion would be to either delete both pages and move the cultural and literature-based information to the Stepfamily page, or merge Stepfather and Stepmother into a single page titled something like, "Step Parents in Culture and Fiction." Probably not the best final title, but you get my intent from it.

2. I'm rewriting some text on the Stepfamily page, about stepparent adoption, and came across an information gap with the abandonment_(legal) and child_abandonment pages. The previous text is trying to reference a stepparent adoption happening when the non-custodial parent is legally considered to have abandoned the child(ren), and the legal grounds for abandonment by a non-custodial parent, by connecting to a brief paragraph on the abandonment_(legal) page that does mention this kind of abandonment, but gives no details at all. I was going to change the link on the word abandonment to the child_abandonment page but that page also has almost no information on what legally constitutes abandonment by a non-custodial parent when they are still being cared for by the custodial parent, because the bulk of that page is dedicated to abandoning kids to the foster system, the streets, etc.

I do think that the section of the Stepfamily page that talks about adoption should at least link to information on what legally constitutes abandonment as a non-custodial parent, but I don't think that's the page where the applicable references and data should reside. I think it makes more sense for those details to be on the Child_abandonment page, so the Stepfamily page can link to it. In which case I would suggest adding some bullets to the Child_abandonment section of the page, giving an overview of the legal definitions of non-custodial abandonment and the ramifications of it. Further I think the section of the abandonment_(legal) page that talks about family abandonment, should link be linked to the Child_abandonment page, probably as a See Also directly under section heading.

The more basic stuff I can do myself, but like I said, I don't know presently how to set up a discussion for deletions and mergers, and I don't have time to commit right now to learning how to do that properly. So thanks in advance for any help someone can offer on this. CleverTitania (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * I've fixed step-parent, which restores it to how it was 2005–2017. For the rest of your first point, I can see the case for the redirects and merges you proposed being easily taken care of by a post on the talk page of stepfather and stepmother to propose the change into redirects to stepfamily. Because of the differing cultural overtones, I doubt you'll achieve consensus for redirect and merge, but you don't need to do anything elaborate; simply post a proposal on both pages. To proceed, you'll eventually want to figure out how the various merge templates work together, but it's not very complicated.
 * Similarly, you can post your concerns about the abandonment pages in talk page comments, not necessarily as a formal proposal, but just as a discussion starter.
 * Don't let the bureaucratic aspects of Wikipedia overwhelm you, just do something reasonable and, most of the time, it will turn out just fine or you'll find someone who can help you.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Scientific digital cameras article
I am looking for an article on scientific digital cameras; I can find an article on consumer digital cameras and articles on digital imaging sensors. Can someone point me in the right direction with a link?--BeamWeaver (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Category:Cameras by type, you will find some categories there that might help. You might also find pages like Micrograph helpful.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC).


 * Thank you. I did look at the categories, they are very useful, but none of the articles are about the huge class of cameras used on scientific instruments, and the digital camera article doesn't discuss anything but consumer cameras. No one would be selling million dollar cameras to scientists if they were the same thing as consumer SLRs. There are a couple of dozen manufacturers of cameras for electron microscopes (most of the light microscope companies, for example, but also specialized manufacturers), more vendors for cameras for the various kinds of light microscopes, cameras to record wide beam or scanning images on microscopes, infrared camera systems (an article that exists but that should be in the same category as other scientific cameras), medical imaging sensors and recorders (aka cameras), but only the sensors have articles that I can find? It's like having an article on apertures and Kodachrome film, but nothing on SLRs or medium format cameras. I'm sure I just haven't figured out the title of the article? The micrograph article is sad.--BeamWeaver (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, as you are obviously interested in the topic, you are probably the best person available right now to write the article. See the Your first article guide on how to get started. (Step 1 - Collect your sources.) If you need any further assistance or advice, you know where to find us. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The naming scheme for the digital imaging articles is unusual; the article text sometimes does not match the title, and some are so far off the topic that I am thinking I must be missing the article! But, let's assume it is missing! If I start an article, how do I figure out how to name it, so that other people will find it?--BeamWeaver (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You may start constructing the draft in your own sandbox while thinking of a name, and then transfer to a draft. I'm no expert on cameras, but naming it scientific digital camera seems sufficient unless there's a more correct name. You may also consult WikiProjects concerning this topic, and/or their members, directly, such as WikiProject Photography or WikiProject Technology. Rosalina2427  (talk to me) 22:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I created a thread at Wikiproject: Technology to ask there.--BeamWeaver (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Why were pages added for missing Lesley Gore albums, to improve Wikipedia's collection of Discography, judged not notable and deleted?
Hello Wikipedias, Thank you for reading my entry and considering my request to re-enstate deleted album pages. Background: On 8/26/2018 I devoted over 8 hours of personal time to creating and curating new pages for missing Lesley Gore albums. My efforts are in support to improving Wikipedia's collection of discography, which Wikipedia defines as the study and cataloging of published sound recordings, often by specified artists or within identified musical genres. Issue: Within only a few hours I was sent the following message. "Thank you for your contributions. I have redirected several of the pages you created as they did not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria for albums to have a solo article. Please do not remove these redirects unless you can demonstrate that the articles pass the notability standards, which in this case would be significant coverage in secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability is not inherited, and there was a reason the albums did not have pages. If you have any questions, please let me know. Cheers, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 01:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)" Objection:I have read the notability stipulations for albums. I disagree with the actions taken to redirect the pages I added. These pages are intended as an aid to persons researching the recording catalogue of Lesley Gore, a notable American female musician. Ms. Gore recorded 13 studio albums. These releases are well documented by title and relate date and many are still available for purchase or download via Amazon, iTunes, or other digital streaming services. The album pages I created Lesley Gore Sings All About Love", "Love Me By Name", "The Canvas Can Do Miracles" are all verifiable releases by Ms Gore and can be found listed in a number of websites (i.e., DISCOGS, ALLMUSIC, AMAZON, etc.) Further, the album artwork and audio track recordings can be found both Google and Youtube. Resolution: I request the pages I created to be restored and all the links repaired. Otherwise, my hours of voluntary work researching and documenting song titles, their composers, and the track running times are no more; the will remain simply deleted because they were deemed not notable enough to have a dedictaed page. Given that Wikipedia deems Discography of the Resident Evil video game series notable enough to have a dedicated page then why not all 13 studio albums by Ms. Gore? Remember the goal of adding the pages today is to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.C.Parker (talk • contribs)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * The way to rescue all of your hard work is to actually establish notabilty, through the use of references in your article that satisfy the criteria in NMUSIC. The first of your redirected articles that I looked at had zero references and the second referenced only AllMusic. You need better notability references if you expect these articles to be accepted. You can pull your work out of the history and add to it, so nothing has been lost.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

deleted article
Good morning guys, I received a message this morning and can anyone explain why because all the references that where in the article were real. I have put the a part of the message below.

"A tag has been placed on Jeff Chakanyuka requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathrin339 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * welcome to the Teahouse. I can't see the deleted article, but I wonder if it was similar to the draft that is currently in your sandbox? In order to write a Wikipedia article about somebody, you need to find independent, secondary sources that discuss the person in some depth. Articles and columns written by the person himself don't show that he is notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition, you may read WP:YFA —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 10:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To add further to Bonadea's comments regarding your sandbox draft, that draft has 3 references. The first is on a totally different subject (Brexit), the second is a blog written by the subject of the draft (so not independent), and the third makes no mention of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Promo content at Focus on the Family Singapore
Hi all,

I'm quite certain that the PR team from Focus on the Family Singapore is editing the article directly and adding promotional content over the years. It is an affiliate of the American FoTF, but has rebranded itself as a secular family counselling charity in Singapore, and frequently organises events with government ministries, so I get that it is trying to appear less Christian. But older citizens like me do recall its conservative pro-family background and reparative therapy seminars, it is also substantiated by its own websites archived in the early 2000s. I have already edited the articles, but it appears that the PR team is back at it again and I have no wish to be involved in an edit war. Would appreciate if a third party can look into the article and see if it can be improved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoCringe (talk • contribs) 13:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. IMO, sections Overview, Events and programmes, Speaking out against artistes and Awards and recognition are way too promotional. The first two has been tagged as "relying too much on primary sources, which is indeed correct. Seems conflict of interest noticeboard is the best place for this. Regards  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 13:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

concerning the striking of comments on a BLP
I'm being told on my Talk page to strike comments that I have posted on an article Talk page. I am not sure how to proceed. I could do nothing. I assume I will find a report filed at WP:AN/I implicating me. I obviously don't feel that the posts need to be struck. This is in reference to User talk:Bus stop. Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, thanks for stopping by at the Teahouse. This really is not the forum for seeking opinion and views on your interpretation of sources, nor indeed your contact with other editors. (see WP:FORUMSHOP) As you no doubt know, we work by consensus here, and it appears you have been asked to cease asking other editors to interpret one particular source, which you appear to disagree with. That request does not seem unreasonable to me. You state you don't think your posts need to be struck (i.e. cancelled), so I assume you're seeking advice from us here what to do next. Hmm. That's up to you. But anyway, I've taken a quick look (I stress that) at the statement in the article and the source about the views of the orchestra (about Prager) upon which it is based. My personal view is that you are probably not right to demand others to interpret a clearly quoted source, and that it may have been reasonable for one or more editors (like ) to ask you not to do that, and thus ask you to 'strike' your comments to those editors. That said, I'm not sure quite how the title of the question on your talk page relates to 'violating BLP'. From the links you cite, I (at first sight) don't see any WP:BLP violation on your part, and I feel the 'Views' section of the article on Dennis Prager seems very weak. I think the source you are bothered about might best have been included in a section entitled 'Criticism', rather than 'Views'. But the source seems valid, and you should not challenge others to interpret it so as to justify or negate it. I'm not sure what else to say. I doubt this would go to WP:ANI, unless you continue in that vein, but either party is welcome to link to this feedback, providing you recognise my observations are based solely on a very brief visit to the article and selected talk page  comments. I have not looked at any other interaction around this article, and in future I would advise comments to be kept within article talk pages, user talk  pages, or within complaints made to WP:ANI. Does this help? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Nick Moyes Busstop is giving their own opinion about the views of a living person in reaction to an RS, and demanding that others follow them down this completely invalid, OR and BLP-violating road. He should strike and back off from that entire thing. They will likely end up topic banned at AE if they continue. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but there again you might not be right. Forgive me, but I am not going to be drawn into this dispute (and certainly not here at the Teahouse) without further detailed consideration of the issues. I am unable to give that at this present time, so urge you both to cooperate in coming to a practical consensus over edits to the article. This is how we all should collaborate. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing this, . Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You were asked about what I said. Just clarifying. And please keep in mind the difference between behavioral issues and invalid arguments, and disputes over content that are actually based on RS and the policies and guidelines. This place would be even more of a wild west than it is sometimes, if new editors aren't guided into the correct paths here, and established editors don't remain grounded on the foundations Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck through another one. That makes 2 out of the 4 requested by . I hope that will be the end of this. Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Followup—— is apparently still not satisfied. They write "You are treating BLP like a game. It is not a game. And of course people at the teahouse are not going to judge a BLP violation. That is not what they do there. This will end up at AE tomorrow if the rest are not struck." So, I now have struck the other two posts. Bus stop (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've even decided to strike through one more of my posts, which didn't even mention. It is my fondest hope that this extra measure satisfies all needs regarding this matter. If there is anything else I can strike through please don't hesitate to bring it to my attention. Bus stop (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

HELP: Merging Accounts
Hey! The users User:mrwoogi010 and User:Caninecrew are both by accounts. I would like these accounts to be merged with the Username of CanineCrew and the account data of mrwoogi010. Feel free to visit both my User/talk pages to verify the relation. If I need to request this somewhere else, feel free to let me know on my talk page or by replying to this post.

CanineCrew &#124; Have a Great Day!! (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure that's possible. The most you could done is have your user page and user talk page for Mrwoogi010 redirect to the ones for Caninecrew.  I've never even heard of the possibility of merging contributions. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a deleted page republished
The page in question is APEX Analytix, a company based in Greensboro, NC and is a provider of supplier portal software; trusted supplier data; controls, audit and analytics software; and AP recovery audit services. The page was deleted in 2015 and has since been achived. I'm trying to get this republished and Im looking for some advice on the best way to do this. Looking at the Articles of Deletion log it appears that the debate over this page was about the citations. I have additional articles written about our company from reputable sources such as Forbes and Spend Matters

--Aparker63 (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Read WP:COI. Also, Forbes contributors are not Forbes proper but blogs hosted on the Forbes website.  Those and press releases are not considered acceptable sources for demonstrating notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, the reason the article was deleted was creation by a blocked user who was advertising against our terms of use (in particular, paid editing).  The deletion discussion you found wasn't what lead to the deletion of the article.  As you said "our company," I strongly recommend that the next action you take is disclosing your employer on your user page. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Fill map on wikipedia
I am trying to fill multiple nations on the map. If someone know help me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by शिव साहिल (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may refer to WikiProject Maps for help there! Regards, Rosalina2427  (talk to me) 17:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi.
I tried to edit a page on Blaire White made by SarekOfVulcan. But it was repeatedly, removed by them. Because they don't viewed my two sources as sufficient despite having sources on her being attacked by left-winged extremists were misformed, because both her and her boyfriend faked it. Can you guys help me out with this? Because I'm still, interested in adding the information on the page despite SarekOfVulcan being disrespectful to me for no reason other than my inexperience in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Rick James (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand how this encyclopedia works.
 * All we do is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.
 * You didn't cite sources, you added "he said, she said" bollocks.
 * was not only right to remove what you added, but to WP:REVDEL the material as well. He was not "disrespectful" to you, much less for no reason other than my inexperience in Wikipedia -- he explained the situation calmly and you ignored his attempts to help you be a better editor.  If we're going to say that anyone's disrespectful, you've disrespected this community's standards and the Sarek's attempts to help you understand those standards.  Or would you rather just leave accusations of "disrespect" out of this and focus on clearly defined acts with the assumption of good faith?  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, thanks for not only, showing that you are one-sided. But also, gave me reasons to not use Wikipedia as a credible source and ask you if I can delete my account. Than again, I was called an asshole by SarekofVulcan when he blocked me. So, I'm glad that you are as mature as he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Rick James (talk • contribs) 17:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No, you were not. --bonadea contributions talk 17:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * (Yeah, I was). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Rick James (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

caption picture adding problem
Hello, attempted to start adding some data to my sons his wikipedia page, would like to add next to his name a current photo, Can someone tell me if this is possible? regards Dutchdunker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchdunker (talk • contribs) 14:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. If I'm not mistaken, you've said that you're trying to edit your son's Wikipedia page. Under of conflict of interest guidelines, users may not edit articles about their family. Even if it is under good faith, COI editing is strongly discouraged. The safest way to avoid doing so is simply to never make direct edits to live articles. That doesn't mean your contributions are unwelcome. Instead of directly editing, you may propose changes, get editors to review them, and let others make the changes. You may read the guidelines here at Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Regards, Rosalina2427  (talk to me) 16:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * But to answer your specific question, : yes you can add a photo, provided that you own the copyright. In fact this is one way that relatives and associates of people who are the subject of articles often can contribute to the articles. Wikipedia does not generally accept images unless they are such that anybody may reuse them for any purpose. So, for example, most images found on the Internet may not be used. But if you have a picture that you took yourself, you probably own the copyright, and therefore have the legal power to release it in a way that Wikipedia will accept. You have to do it in two stages: first, upload it to Wikimedia Commons, agreeing to license it as required; then use it in a Wikipedia article. Please see Help:Upload. --ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Errors on "List of Soyuz missions"?
I've noticed that there are a couple of possible errors on the "List of Soyuz missions". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soyuz_missions

1) There are two 48th Soyuz missions listed - Soyuz T8 & Soyuz T13. Should Soyuz T13 read as 54th Soyuz mission?

2) There are two 63rd Soyuz missions listed - Soyuz TM6 & Soyuz TM7. Should Soyuz TM7 read as 64th Soyuz mission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don.Kastre (talk • contribs) 20:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, . This is a forum for new users to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia.  Are you looking for help in fixing that article? John from Idegon (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

How to fix a typo in a title
How do I fix a typo in the spelling of a name in a title? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDFitz (talk • contribs) 18:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:MOVE, but you have to be WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've moved Voelker & Dixon to Voelcker & Dixon for you. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 21:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Help regarding blanking an un-encyclopedic section
Hi all,

I came across Hanoi_–_Amsterdam_High_School and found that there is an extensive section dedicated to listing achievements of students without reference. I was unable to directly find any references for this list in English, although perhaps further searching will find them. In any case, it seems to violate Wikipedia WP:SOAP and WP:DIRECTORY. I have made two posts on the talk page, but wanted to consult more veteran users before making a drastic change. Thanks in advance! ChunyangD (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I've put the article on the cleanup list here and will work on it myself. Parts of the article does violate WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 15:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Wonderful, thank you very much Rosalina2427! I had not heard about the cleanup list before. Would you actually mind working together to figure out how to cleanup? I've been around Wikipedia for a while, but still am not as confident in making edits like this. I would love some guidance on how to do it properly. ChunyangD (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Gladly! In fact, some editors have already been cleaning up the page so there's not as much to work with on this article. I will happily answer any questions regarding cleanup; you may ask on my talk page so this Teahouse thread can conclude since this issue is mostly solved at this point. Rosalina2427  (talk to me) 22:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:David Patrikarakos
I reviewed User:Le Bijoux/sandbox and declined it, as a duplicate of Draft:David Patrikarakos and as not providing independent sources to establish notability. User:Jayron32 reviewed Draft:David Patrikarakos and declined it, saying, in detail, that almost everything was sourced to the subject himself and to his employers and organizations. The author, User:Le Bijoux, then wrote to my talk page: ‘Can you clarify the part about the subject having to be in "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Im a bit confused as his work has been reviewed and referenced in reputable broadsheets and other media.’ Can someone please explain about how press releases, interviews with the subject, and similar coverage in independent reliable sources is not considered independent?

I would also ask why the subject is so eager to get this one article accepted, but I am instructed to assume good faith.

Do other editors agree with the declines? Do other editors have any other advice, other than that maybe he isn’t notable?

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for doing me the courtesy of raising it User:Robert McClenon Le Bijoux (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's ok. If there is two identical submissions submitted by the same user and one has been declined already, then the other one should also be declined too and the user should be warned notified about it. —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 08:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As the draft stands I agree with the decline; there are not enough independent sources to indicate notability for the author. I'm not an article reviewer, it did occur to me that you may have better luck with an article on one of his books as the most independent sources all seem to be the book reviews (can't tell how extensive they are for sure as they are paywalled, so unsure if they are for the same book, or a mixture of the two books). Curdle (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That's all of them. In there, I count maybe one solid source that is truly independent and about his life and work, and it's about 4 paragraphs. Almost everything else just profile pages from organizations he belongs to, which are not independent of him, since he belongs to or works for those organizations. There's also a few appearances he's made at events or podcasts or the like, but those do not establish notability, since it is not writing about him. I hope that all helps. -- Jayron 32 11:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. Let's go source-by-source, and indicate the problems with them:
 * This is just an employee profile page on a website he works for. Not independent, doesn't contain any real biographical information about him.
 * Same as above.
 * Another simple profile page from a University where he spoke once to promote a book he wrote. Basically same as above.
 * A profile page from a university where he is listed as an "Non-resident fellow"
 * A review of his book and a brief synopsis of his work. The first independent source we have, marginal in terms of being substantial, but it is something.  More of things like this would help.
 * IMDB profile. Minimal content.
 * Link to buy his book on Amazon.
 * Employee profile on a Website he consults for.
 * "Award" from a blog run by a publishing company that published one of his books.
 * Link to buy another book on Amazon.
 * 11 is a few short quips from some book reviews.
 * is a TedX talk he gave.
 * is a podcast he appeared on once.
 * is a TV show he appeared on once.

Thanks for the feedback User:Jayron32 Will look into the book entry standing on its own. Le Bijoux (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to crate a page for Jimi Kendrix
I am trying to crate a page for Jimi Kendrix can you help me I am new to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveSmith2018 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Since your account is not autoconfirmed, you cannot directly create articles in mainspace. However, you can use the article wizard to help you draft it. You may also read WP:Your First Article. Regards  ~AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 04:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , are you talking about Jimi Hendrix? If so, there is already an article about him, located here: Jimi Hendrix CoolSkittle (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , there is a record producer named Jimi Kendrix. I express no opinion about his notabilty. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Who’s running the show
History of the behind the curtain story — Preceding unsigned comment added by MennaB (talk • contribs) 02:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't quite understand your question. Could you ask it again? If it's a general reference question rather than about Wikipedia editing, it might belong at WP:Reference desk, but it'll need to be a bit clearer before either of us can help. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 02:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Article Naming / Forwarding
Hello. Is there any way to forward a name to an article?

DaVinci International Film Festival is often searched as "DaVinci Film Festival" (w/o "International") and it would be nice for it to redirect to the DaVinci page. I'm assuming Wikipedia does not approve of creating a new page with the same information, so how does this work? I've noticed many other festivals with "International" have forwarding to appropriate festival page. Let's take "San Diego Film Festival" as an example.

Thank you for any and all assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasmultimedia (talk • contribs) 13:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ DaVinci Film Festival. —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 13:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasmultimedia (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: was a promo account for the PR arm of the company behind the DaVinci Film Festival as well as the subjects of the other articles they were making. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out. Tagged DaVinci Film Festival with G8. —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 03:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft retractions (Same post as on my Talk page)
Hello Wikipedia, I wanted to enquire as to whether it is acceptable for me to retract the drafts I made (Draft:Michael Provost, Draft:Hunter Avallone, Draft:Siddharth Menon (actor), and Draft:Dhruv Ganesh) before I was autoconfirmed. Seeing how the Articles for Creation space is heavily backlogged, I would like to proceed adding these articles directly to the mainspace and then await general review from a senior editor. Do let me know if I can proceed with this, I will redirect these draft pages to their corresponding mainspace articles. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC).
 * It would be technically possible for you to move these one-sentence stubs direct to mainspace – with the risk that they would then be deleted. But you should definitely not copy them into mainspace and replace the drafts by redirects, that would just cause confusion. Maproom (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear, thank you so much for your advice! I have thoroughly checked the sources on these articles, and to me they have appeared to be appropriately cited (for stubs). In my short while being autoconfirmed here on Wikipedia, I have been blessed to have many of my BLP contributions graciously accepted directly into the mainspace. I feel confident about these drafts in that same way. May I be bold on this action? Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC).
 * You may be bold. But please do so by moving the drafts to article space. Do you know how to do that? Maproom (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear, please go see if I have performed the move action correctly for my remaining draft: Draft:Siddharth Menon (actor) and Siddharth Menon (actor). The Drafts for Hunter Avallone and Dhruv Ganesh have been discarded for limited scope of notability after being declined at AfC, whereas the Draft for Michael Provost was accepted via AfC. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC).
 * It looks as if you've done it right. But Siddharth Menon (actor) now has a notice at the top, "It is requested that the page history of Draft:Siddharth Menon (actor) be merged into the history of this page. This action must be performed by an administrator." I don't understand why this has happened, and I neither the power nor the knowledge to sort it out. (Another issue is that Siddharth Menon (actor) and Siddharth Menon ought now to have hatnotes pointing at each other. But I'm not going to get involved in that while the history merge is outstanding.) Maproom (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Melaik
Im working on background research for some recent writings when I came across the location term Melaik, used to describe an area somewhere between the old Leper Colony and the mental asylum in what is now present day Yio Chu Kang in Singapore. Melaik was used by the British Army to identify this area, but I cannot locate it on any army map of 1945, nor does it come up in a search through Malay names. Any ideas or thoughts appreciated Le Bijoux (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is for asking questions about Wikipedia such as editing and policies. Your question is unrelated to Wikipedia. Sorry. You may also read WP:FORUM. Regards  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 08:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems you have removed this message before I replied. Feel free to remove this if you want. —AE| talk  •  contributions )''' 08:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This would be a great question for the WP:Reference Desk though. shoy (reactions) 14:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Abelmoschus Esculentus and User:Shoy I have indeed discovered the reference desk and posted the question. No headway still but will continue trying Le Bijoux (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

petroleum first extracted
National Historic Sites of Canada are places that have been designated by the federal Minister of the Environment on the advice of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, as being of national historic significance. Parks Canada, a federal agency, manages the National Historic Sites program. As of March 2018, there are 984 National Historic Sites, 171 of which are administered by Parks Canada; the remainder are administered or owned by other levels of government or private entities. The sites are located across all ten provinces and three territories, with two sites located in France. The area with the richest and most extensive mining history are the nearby communities of Curryville and Albert Mines. Although copper and manganese were also mined there, the area is best known for two materials: albertite and gypsum. Albert Mines, and the remains from its mining past, are listed in Canada's Historic Places. The Albert Mines listing in Canada's Historic Places notes: "Albert Mines was the site of the first commercial extraction of petroleum products anywhere in the world." Albertite is a shiny black (or occasionally dark brown) crumbly rock that is very rich (more than 50%) in volatile material. It played a key role in the development of kerosene which replaced whale oil for lighting, and some say that the development helped save whales from extinction. Wikipedia shows under the topic petroleum listed below, was the first commercial extraction of petroleum. However under historic sites of Canada it shows Albert Mines N.B.  which one is correct ? The use of petroleum in ancient China dates back to more than 2000 years ago. In I Ching, one of the earliest Chinese writings cites that oil in its raw state, without refining, was first discovered, extracted, and used in China in the first century BCE. In addition, the Chinese were the first to use petroleum as fuel as the early as the fourth century BCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.118.141 (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What is your question about editing Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

How to view new articles that has been created lately on Wikipedia?
I notice how people visit new articles very quickly. How do they do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaReen (talk • contribs) 10:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - you can view newly created articles using the New Pages Feed. For articles which have been submitted using the Articles for Creation process, and are currently drafts, you can see submissions here, and successes here. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)