Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 November 27

= November 27 =

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
US denies censorship ha official statistics examine the link !!! you are funny

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&type=revision&diff=751705934&oldid=751705848

You have removed a number of official government media sources. Why? More precisely you try to hide terorizma facts banditry and blockade against millions of people. It will be publicly used. In most media collecting one hundred million page views per day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.114 (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The proper place for such remarks is the talk page of the article. Maproom (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

How to Undo a Redirect
If a page was "moved" (given a new name) in 2009, but now needs to go back to the old name, how is this done? Thanks, Dimitri Karras (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have begun to answer your question at the Teahouse. Please do not ask the same question at two different forums. —teb728 t c 11:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Home-made infobox - how to send it to right?
Circle of Health International has a grotty handcrafted imitation of an infobox; I've rescued it from halfway down the page, but can't work out how to send it to right-hand side. Could someone help? Thanks. Pam D  12:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You could just switch it over to an infobox that other NGO articles already use such as Template:Infobox non-profit. Why reinvent the wheel?  † dismas †|(talk) 13:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added  but an infobox template would be better. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could have spent quite a while finding a proper infobox and relisting the content - I was hoping for a short cut "better-than-nothing" solution. That's neat - call it an infobox and it behaves like one. Thanks, will try to remember if I come across one like this again.  Pam  D  15:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

how do I create a page for my book
I have a few non-fiction books I would like to create a page for but not sure how as I am new to wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countrymudderboy (talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * First off: welcome to Wikipedia! Second, WP discourages any editor from creating or editing pages that they themselves are associated with or closely related to in subject. This is considered a "conflict-of-interest": WP:COI. However, you can request a page to be created if you feel a certain subject is notable for inclusion WP:BK here: . Although, if your books are indeed notable, they probably would have a page already created. Best of luck! Maineartists (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Electromagnetic pulse
Your page titled "Electromagnetic Pulse" has significant fundamental errors. I have been attempting to correct the information using my name and credentials. That does not work as the approach appears not planned.

The basis of the false information is also used to generate other false claims about the threat of and EMP attack. Thus this presents significant danger to national security. I attempted to edit the page on " Electromagnetic Pulse" but was unsuccessful. The fundamental error is shown in their definition what can bring an EMP pulse. That information is false. Quote first from the actual electromagnetic basis from Maxwell's theories and math. "AN electromagnetic field contains both an electric field and a magnetic field. They work together." This is what forms light as an electromagnetic force.

In sharp contrast the Wikipedia page on " Electromagnetic Pulse" Namely

From the Page  "Main article: Electromagnetism EMP energy may be transferred in any of four forms: Electric field Magnetic field Electromagnetic radiation Electrical conduction

Conclude an electric field by its self or a magnetic field by its self can not be an electromagnetic field. Thus they can not produce a pulse.

The danger in that falsehood is also used in claims about nuclear weapons tests. Those claims in particular in one of the series of operation Hartack namely detonation titled TEAK is falsely claimed to show a massive electromagnetic pulse because it caused radio signal blackouts. That is a false claim as shown in the actual detonation reports. There were large amounts of free electron clouds that caused radio wave blackouts. Free electron clouds are not electromagnetic. Thus the entire focus on dangerous EMPs is based on falsoods in both the TEAK reports and on electromagnetic pulse as both shown in wikipedia. There are more details available that I show in a comment on my google blog. I would ask you to provide me with the the name of who wrote you science commentary. Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . The place to discuss changes to a specific article is that article's talk page; or possibly the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, if there is one. But please note that the gold standard for Wikipedia articles is independent reliably-published sources: your credentials are not relevant, because the reader has no way of knowing whether you are who you say you are. (I'm not being rude: this is equally true of me, and anybody else who uses their real name). If the material you think is wrong is not cited to a reliable source, you are at liberty to remove it; if it is cited to a reliable source you should not summarily remove it, but open a discussion about it. Similarly, any material you wish to add should be cited to a reliable source. (I am not commenting on the content of your suggestion above: I have not attempted to read or understand it. That is why the Talk page is a better place for the discussion: people watching that page are likely to have an interest and understanding of the matter). --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article talk page you need to discuss this on is Talk:Electromagnetic pulse. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

problem with someone called Ad Orientem
I have been threatened by someone called Ad Orientem with all sorts of punishment regarding my posting of information for the "Dorothy Kilgallen" page. While I added the name of a book I have written that is historically important to a better understanding of what a remarkable woman Kilgallen was and why there are questions about her death that can now be answered with primary sources I quote instead of speculation, there is no intention on my part to promote the book but only to do the posting for historically truthful reasons. I told Ad Orientem this but he is apparently not listening since the threats of punishment continue. I even revised what I wrote about information to make it more concise, but again Ad Orientem threatened me with reprisals. He even accused me of posting through multiple names which has never happened and won't and threatened that I would be banned from posting until he apparently did some checking and withdrew that threat. I am a big believer in Wikipedia and have donated money in the past but this sort of conduct is unfair and should not be permitted.

All I want to add is the name of the book (The Reporter Who Knew Too Much: The Mysterious Death of What's My Line TV Star and Media Icon Dorothy Kilgallen)with publisher and ISBN and a short statement: "More about Kilgallen's life and times may be learned through primary sources quoted in The Reporter Who Knew Too Much." This is far from promoting the book and can only benefit those seeking the truth about this remarkable woman.

Thank you, Mark Shaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:8300:DA2B:C555:1852:BBA0:7DC3 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to have added the same information both as and under the IP above. This is using multiple accounts and is frowned upon if used in a non-constructive way. The tone of the entries would be considered promotional particularly as you are the author. Reinstating information after you have been asked not to is also 'disruptive'. You should engage the other editor at their talk-page if you wish to pursue the matter. I note the other editor has withdrawn the SPI but I would not recommend trying to add the information again. Eagleash (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * this is not the correct forum for this discussion. Please address any issues you have with me either on your talk page where I have left multiple messages, or on my talk page if you wish. You could also respond to the discussion that has been opened at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard to which you were pinged. See also my reply to you that I left on the talk page of . However, if you are convinced that I am harassing you or in some other way behaving in a grossly improper manner you can lodge a complaint at WP:ANI, though I would encourage you to read WP:BOOMERANG before doing so. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Dakhla,
An user from Morocco changed Dakhla, Western Sahara to Dakhla, and removed data about Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Por favor, elimine los cambios in the name. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted the move. You can always revert the move if you are autoconfirmed unless someone edits the redirect. If someone edits the redirect, you can request to revert the move at WP:RMT, thanks. Fuortu (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Gastón Cuello (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Creating pages via Sandbox and clearing sandbox history
I recently submitted an article for creation called United States House of Representatives elections in Oregon, 2002. When the page got created from my sandbox, there were a couple leftover revision histories in my Sandbox that credited the new page creation to another user, Samee, because their history remained after I had created another article form the sandbox. My question is two-fold. How do I get the page I created to be credited to me? Is that done through selective revision deletion request? The other question is how do I clear my sandbox and start over after a page has been created?

Thanks, Curoi (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can have it credited to you because the article was previously a redirect and it was not a newly created page. Also, just go to User:Curoi/sandbox (you'll get redirected, so go to the top where it will say "Redirected from User:Curoi/sandbox" and click on that link) and empty it manually. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it has to do with who made the first edit to the page. I went through the same process with the United States House of Representatives elections in Oregon, 2004, which was also a redirect. However, I was still credited with having created the page because the redirect was not actually the real title of the article. Can the first two revisions of the 2002 election be removed as they are carried over from my sandbox page based on the 2004 elections? My second question was also related, in that, if I use my sandbox to create a page, I will not get credited for creating page because I'm not the first person to have edited the sandbox. Somehow, there must be a way to create a new sandbox and revision history because that happened when the 2004 elections article was created. Curoi (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Because all contributions are licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL, we cannot completely remove the revisions, so Samee would still the page creator no matter what. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Won't a WP:HISTSPLIT fix this? Those first two revisions at United States House of Representatives elections in Oregon, 2002 are not related to the 2002 election. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It would, but to save the round trip a simple selective deletion will work better. In the future Curoi, you can start with a new sandbox (or use db-user if using the same sandbox) to start with a clean history. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked the revision history information but it's not clear to me if this is an appropriate use of revision history. Seems like that is more for severe violation of Wikipedia civility standards. In any case, I guess it doesn't matter. Thanks for the new info though! Curoi (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Revision deletion is mainly limited to abuse and so on, however what was employed here was an elaborate shorthand mixture of history splitting and userspace speedy deletion, which only looked like selective deletion and dressed up as housekeeping. You're right, it's not particularly important, but technically it was indeed appropriate. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)