Help desk
< July 2	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 4 >

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.

July 3

Viking Line terminals

I just expanded the article about the Katajanokka Terminal and moved it back to the article namespace.

Now Viking Line has four other terminals: Turku, Mariehamn, Tallinn and Stockholm. I have visited them all except Mariehamn. Are there existing Wikipedia articles about them somewhere? I can translate them from Finnish, Estonian or Swedish if necessary. JIP | Talk 00:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer Report Wikipedia Page Under Attack

Dear Helpdesk: Some rogue editor attacked Palmer Report Wikipedia page accusing it of being conspiracy theories. It is nothing like Info Wars and Briebart. These two sites were added to its page. Here is the Palmer Report URL for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Report

We need your help because this is a smear tactic to disparage Palmer Report. This rogue editor also needs to be banned from Wikipedia for attacking the Palmer Report and making false claims. Please help. Thank you.

The page has recently become protected due to disruptive editing, maybe that will help. Some anon editors are changing large amounts of text with edit summary "typo". RudolfRed (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wild inaccuracies, claims don't match sourcing, on "Palmer Report" page after rogue editor swapped out the entire page

FYI

– Merging with above section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

At this point not a single word of the "Palmer Report" Wikipedia page is accurate, sourced, or fails to have a neutral point of view. Among the major inaccuracies and invalid inclusions:

1) Snopes ended up firing Brooke Binkiwski, after disciplining her for making inappropriate remarks about the news sites she was covering, so her quote about Palmer Report is illegitimate and should be removed.

2) The Trump-Russia scandal, which was ultimately validated by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, is not “dubious content” or a “conspiracy theory.” That entire segment should be removed.

3) Palmer Report did not begin a regular publishing schedule until early 2017, after the 2016 election was over, and therefore was not “shared almost exclusively by Hillary Clinton supporters.” This false claim should be removed.

4) The prospect of Donald Trump going to prison is not a “conspiracy theory.” His company was just criminally indicted, with the widespread expectation that he could end up personally indicted as part of the same criminal probe. There is clearly a factual, prosecutorial basis for expecting that Trump may end up in prison. This remark needs to be removed.

5) The location of the Trump desk is still disputed, and in any case obviously not important enough to be on Wikipedia page. This nonsense should be removed.

6) Palmer Report analysis of the Syrian missile strike was accurate; this is validated by the fact that the widely respected Lawrence O’Donnell said the same thing. The fact that the Wikipedia editor attacks O’Donnell is proof that this is nothing more than biased right wing bias, and should be removed.

7) The source of the Ed Markey thing was Louise Mensch, not Palmer Report. This is part of a years-long bizarre effort to tie Palmer Report to Mensch, even though they were never aligned. This nonsense should be deleted.

8) Palmer Report's analysis of the Niger ambush was accurate; the widely respected Rachel Maddow said the same thing. Again, this Wikipedia editor’s bizarre attack on Maddow makes clear that it’s right wing biased. It should be removed.

9) The entire “reception” section is nothing but baseless whining about Palmer Report written by its competitors. This obviously all has a biased point of view and must be removed.

10) In particular, Glenn Greenwald was ousted from the Intercept, and Bethania Palma was ousted from Snopes, making their criticism of Palmer Report biased and illegitimate; none of it is in line with Wikipedia’s bias standards.

11) The German Marshall Fund study did NOT categorize Palmer Report as “false content producers.” The source link doesn’t even support this. The author of the New York Times article has also confirmed this in writing, which can be provided.

12) The Columbia Journalism Review study labels Palmer Report as having “bias” but does NOT categorize us as “fake-news, clickbait, and hate sites.” The source link proves this. All you have to do is click the source link to confirm this.

13) There is, obviously, no comparison or parallel between Palmer Report and Breitbart (a white nationalist propaganda site) or InfoWars (a site that falsely claims school shootings didn't happen, arguably helped incite an insurrection, and promotes conspiracy theories about reptiles). There is no evidentiary basis for this quote, and it should be removed.

14) Whoever added these biased, inaccurate, and falsely sourced claims about Palmer Report also removed every positive or neutral entry that had previously been on the page, further making clear that this was a vindictive hack job and not a legitimate edit. At the least, the page should be fully reverted to what it was a week ago.

Courtesy link: Palmer Report

The place to discuss this is on the talk page of the article. RudolfRed (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like these points were taken from Palmer Report's Twitter feed. GoingBatty (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the topic is under DS there should be zero tolerance for the attempt at brigading taking place off-wiki. If they have a legitimate complaint they can raise it on the talk page and provide sources to back their request up, not dox editors or recruit a bunch of people with arrogant, self-serving vitriol. Doubly so given WP:ARBAP2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a legitimate redirect page? Or is this vandalism?

Link: [1]. Wiki-link: Bye bye building. Is this a legitimate redirect page? Or is this vandalism? I don't know what to make of it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very much like vandalism to me. Or at least, stupidity. An unlikely search term though, so not something needing urgent deletion. I suggest you ask UserTwoSix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for an explanation, and take it from there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue it's an R3 candidate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it per your suggestion. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

How to delete text from sandbox

Each time I delete a paragraph it seems to duplicate it. Please help. Also, I tried to upload an image to replace existing one, this did not happen? If I want to add caption after uploading an image, can I do this?

Thank you Nalini — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeAubergine (talk • contribs) 12:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AwesomeAubergine: This sounds like a question for WP:VPT, but does the duplication problem persist if you use the other editor (source instead of visual, or vice versa)? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, worked for visual editor not source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeAubergine (talk • contribs)

Page Deletion

Hi Wipedia Team,

could you kindly delete this draft as per below link?

https://www.duhocchina.com/wiki/en/Draft:Juliette_Schlegl

Thank you in advance

Regards

Juliette — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julyroblex (talk • contribs) 15:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julyroblex, the Wikipedia link is Draft:Juliette Schlegl: we can't advise on a copy on another website. Why do you want the draft deleted? Drafts are not visible on search engines and are normally deleted when they have not been edited for six months. TSventon (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Julyroblex: As far as I can tell, that site appears to be some sort of mirror that rips content off of Wikipedia. I believe the licence that Wikipedia uses allows it to do so, as it technically attributes the content to Wikipedia, but I'll leave that for someone more versed in copyright to determine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert at mirroring either, but what could be problematic is that the article histories do not work, and if you switch to dekstop view via the usual methods, any note about this being a Wikipedia Copy is Missing, not to emntion the there-present "History"-link does not work. Also, I suspect that this might be a live mirror. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a live mirror. I made a test edit on the original draft and it immediately showed up on the mirror site. JIP | Talk 18:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Julyroblex: every time you add any material anywhere in Wikipedia, you explicitly license it under the CC-BY-SA license. This includes drafts, help desk questions, material on talk pages and user pages, and absolutely everything else. This is the reason our lawyers made us change the old "save" button on the edit screen to "publish changes". "Publish" is a legal term. You hit that button when you added that material to your draft. We cannot prevent anyone from copying that material to another site as long as they comply with the CC-BY-SA license. If you wish to develop material privately before "publishing" it anywhere on the Wikipedia web site, you should work do so in a file on your own computer. -Arch dude (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:NOTALTHIST

This morning I received a message from someone stating that I added a "hoax" in my sandbox even though I made this as a test. Can I add alternative history on my sandbox as a test? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SPinnerLaserzthe2nd. Probably not; but like many things on Wikipedia, it's a judgment call. The relevant policy is WP:UPNOT. --ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the best place that is similar to Wikipedia to put alt histories? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This kinda falls under WP:NOTWEBHOST. We're not here to host any alternate history projects you might be working on. Even Eric Flint and 1632 have their own separate wiki. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title

The title says draft, but I think this is no longer a draft, and the title needs fixing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:W._Arthur_Cunningham --2603:7000:2143:8500:3C41:54EE:DD0:8B3E (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a draft. To submit it for consideration as an article, click where it says "Submit the draft for review". Maproom (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Word missing from title

The title here seems to be missing the word "Act" in the third to last word.

Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization of 2017

Complicating things is if articles already link to the wrong title.

Also letting User:Bkissin know. --2603:7000:2143:8500:3C41:54EE:DD0:8B3E (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2603:7000:2143:8500:3C41:54EE:DD0:8B3E, I have moved the page to the correct title. – Rummskartoffel 20:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. 2603:7000:2143:8500:3C41:54EE:DD0:8B3E (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit a citation?

I was reading the article Email Harvesting, and the article behind citation 9 was deleted. It's available on Wayback Machine so I was gonna edit the citation, but I don't know what I'm doing, didn't see how to on mobile. While I'm here, let me also ask, is there a proper place for questions of the general "does this edit look good to you guys" type? // NomadicVoxel (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help with the Wayback Machine. But for your other question, I'd say the best place is the article's talk page. If you think what you've done is probably good, you can make the edit and draw attention to it there. If you think it likely to be controversial, or considered wrong, just detail the edit on the talk page, and see what response you get; if nothing happens for a week, go ahead anyway. Maproom (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it, thanks.// NomadicVoxel (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are usually defined in the article prose, at the point where they are first used. In the case of this particular article, you can edit Email-address harvesting § Countermeasures to get to the 9th citation's source code. You can then either manually add a link to the archive, use a template such as {{webarchive}}, or convert the citation to a citation template (here, {{cite web}} would be appropriate) that supports including an archive. – Rummskartoffel 21:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our page was just deleted after 12 years

We have just been hit with the realisation that our wikipedia has been deleted. Obviously we are devastated and are looking for answers as this connection was very important to our obtaining work and the work we have made. We are a couple who works together and have tried and failed at every turn to find a way to add wiki citations which it had a warning on it. It was hard to fully navigate wiki for us and this must have ultimately lead to its deletion. There are dozens of wikipedia sites that reference us from Record companies to arts organisations but we couldn't find a way to connect theses pages. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Outta_My_Way / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shut_Up_and_Let_Me_Go / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbel_am_Ufer / This is from another wiki 2 site we found https://en.wikinew.wiki/wiki/AlexandLiane No doubt this happens all the time but for us its kind of devastating. If anyone can help in any way ...we need really it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandliane (talk • contribs) 22:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was never "[your] wikipedia" in the first place, and anyone relying on Wikipedia to determine if someone is trustworthy is a bloody fool I wouldn't trust. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandliane You did not have a "Wikipedia". Wikipedia is the name of this entire website, not individual pages. There was a Wikipedia article about you. It was deleted due to being about living people and having no independent reliable sources to support its content. Wikipedia is not concerned with what a Wikipedia article or lack of one does for your career, to be frank. Wikipedia is only interested in summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. It is not for people to summarize their own work or what they want to say about themselves. That's what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandliane I had a look around for sources to see if a new page could be written, but it seems that there is not much written about your work. Making videos for other people usually generates press for other people, which does not help your situation here as we go by the idea that notability (i.e. suitability for an article) is WP:NOTINHERITED. If there are articles in books, magazines and the news that have been written about your work, you could try writing an article via the WP:Articles For Creation process. If you do do that, be sure to declare your WP:COI on your user page. --- Possibly ☎ 03:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandliane From our perspective, the original article was added 12 year ago in violation or our criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, and it took us 12 years to finally correct this error. I'm sorry if this created any problems for you, but it was the right thing to do, UNLESS our new evaluation of your notability is incorrect. -Arch dude (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's many other options if you just want a place to show off your discography, even a few free ones you have full control over. Wikipedia policies aside, you kinda had this coming by relying on a page that anyone can edit. It sucks, I know, but Wikipedia isn't the right place for your portfolio. // NomadicVoxel (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Entry M Hughes The encyclopedia calls that exotic: -1. QFT -1 - YouTube Negative mass - Wikipedia

Encyclopedia Entry M Hughes The encyclopedia calls that exotic: -1.

QFT -1 - YouTube

  Negative mass - Wikipedia

Can you actually be more specific? This is far too vague to answer as a question. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 July 3

Contents