Help desk
< August 14	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 16 >

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 15

Forget Password

I have forgotten the password for my Wikipedia account. I also do not remember which email I used to create the account, what username I set, or what phone number I used. How can I reset it or edit this information now? 103.18.20.112 (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See H:RP. However, if you do not know the username or email, it would be difficult. Incidentally, I don't think that Wikipedia ever asks for a phone number as a password recovery method.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor. You can probably remember one or two articles you are sure you edited, and roughly when. By looking at the history tab for those articles, you may be reminded of your username and hence can follow the H:RP method. If you no longer have access to the linked email address, your only way forward is to create a new account and, if you wish, state on its userpage "previously edited as XXX". Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked may Wikipedia account history and i get last editor name that is Farazahmad123. So i tried again to reset the password but i couldn't. what should i do now? can you help me now to reset my password or not? 103.18.20.112 (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor. Navigate to Special:PasswordReset and enter that username. An email will be sent to the associated address. If there was no email on record for that account, or you no longer have access to the email, then you are stuck and will have to start a new account. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Farazahmad123 shows you only ever had two edits from that account, in 2021, so it would be no great loss simply to ignore them and start again. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help

We need to paraphrase copyrighted content (along with citations and in text attribution). But we should not add original research. Just for clarification, why is paraphrasing not considered original research since paraphrasing is changing words and creating another way to express information, and no paraphrasing is perfect, so it may change in meaning, which may be interpreted as original research. I know it isn't, but I just wanted to clarify why. Anonymous1261 (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." Paraphrasing from a reliable source is not considered original research because the basis of the text is in the reliable source. If the paraphrasing introduces new material that wasn't in the cited source, it is then considered original research. If you are paraphrasing copyrighted content, please make sure it fits the non-free content policy before inserting it into an article. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Anonymous1261 (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is in no way original research. MallardTV (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siegel & McGehee (redirects to)

I created a new page about filmmaking duo Siegel & McGehee to replace two sub-standard stub pages about the two filmmakers as individuals. The idea was to change the two individual pages to redirects to one "duo" page, but now I realize I can't change an existing page to a redirect. Can anyone help? WikiWonka888! (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiWonka888! Technically, the article on Scott Siegel could be turned into a redirect but I think that is a bad idea. The article on Siegel & McGehee is wikilinked in the WP:LEAD of his biography, which should be sufficient. After all, a fuller individual biography might include material about his early life or family that would not be relevant to his work with McGehee. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks, Mike! It's actually David Siegel (screenwriter), not Scott Siegel, who is the Siegel & McGehee co-director, and his work has been exclusively collaborative with McGehee for 30 years. I'm following the lead of other film co-directors, such as Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, or The Daniels, or the Coen Brothers, whose careers are described on a single page without individual pages. I can't figure out, technically, how to redirect from an existing page, though. Is it possible? WikiWonka888! (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is possible. You edit the source of the article, and replace the entire content with

#REDIRECT [[destination]]

Whether you should do this is another matter, and you should probably discuss it on the article's talk page first.

See WP:Redirect. ColinFine (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was removed for no reason

My edit was deemed 'not constructive' by a bot and it was removed, but it was a paragraph of well-researched information which added to the article. It was on the page Henny Penny - I added the Chinese story of 'the man of Qi worries about the sky', which is completely relevant in the 'related stories' section... I undid the undo but slightly worry that it's just going to get deleted again for no reason. I'm trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia, I'm not committing vandalism. Not sure why my contribution was auto-deleted. Confuro (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't reverted by a bot. You were reverted by an experienced Wikipedia contributor. If you want to contribute positively, I suggest you discuss the matter on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of Henny Penny, you'll see that the second (also human) editor who reverted you, @Jimfbleak. said "good faith addition with no independent verifiable sources".

All information in a Wikipedia article, without exception, should be verifiable from a reliable published source; and while there is not a formal requirement that everything actually be cited, editors nowadays tend to insist on a citation when information is added. ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Confuro Just to clarify a little. You say your addition was "well-researched" but Wikipedia does not allow the inclusion of original unpublished research. We want editors to include their sources, so that readers can verify that what our articles say is backed up by reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox template

Hello! I am trying to create an infobox for artist collectives, and have been writing it here, however when I try to test it over here it isn't working how I want it - it is meant to have headings for "membership" and "art" but for some reason is just putting everything under the "art" heading. Can anyone tell me what the issue is? Thank you very much. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 15:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Infobox § Usage and note the enumeration of the various parameters in the example.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And in general, the order of named parameters don't matter in template calls so any positioning of header1, header2 and header3 would give the same result. It isn't possible to make a coding of {{Infobox}} which would behave as you expected so the more cumbersome parameter numbering is necessary. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, I completely missed that the header was numbered between the data - I appreciate the help very much!! -- NotCharizard ^🗨 08:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review of Re-Submitted Article

Hello, I received feedback regarding citations on the article I submitted a few months back. I've worked on improving the article based on the feedback and have resubmitted it. I would greatly appreciate it if you could review it again. The article is now properly sourced, and I’m hopeful the content meets Wikipedia's standards. If it does not, I would greatly appreciate any guidance on how to further meet those standards. Thank you for your time and support. BDOklahoma24 (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BDOklahoma24 You have submitted it for review and it is pending. As noted on your draft, this could take some time, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BDOklahoma24, please remove the inappropriate external link in the first paragraph. External links do not belong in the body of an article. Please read Wikipedia:External links for more details. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and guidance. I read through the page you linked. I want to make sure you are referring to the Brewster and De Angelis external link? I will remove it now, if so. Thank you again. BDOklahoma24 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BDOklahoma24, that I'd correct and I see that the link has been removed. Cullen328 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i want to delete my account

im planning to abandon this account, goodbye

how do i delete it ZacharyFDS/Memphis1525 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For attribution purposes, accounts cannot be deleted. But you can request to vanish yourself by having your username be renamed to a random text. – robertsky (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so like Deleted User 12345678 etc on discord? ZacharyFDS/Memphis1525 (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Or you can just walk away, literally just "abandon it". DMacks (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy bot action

Hi,

About 13 years ago I added details of a new Fredric Brown collection to Wikipedia to match existing entries - The Proofreaders' Page and Other Uncollected Items

Some time back the page was allegedly removed because it did not "cite any sources" although for some reason I (as author) author was never notified of the deletion (which is discourteous at least).

Then yesterday I got a message to say that the cover scan of the book that I had uploaded would be deleted because it was an "orphaned non-free image".

I reinstated the page (so that the image was no longer orphaned) and attempted to add a source only to find the source has now been deleted by the same bot for reasons I don't pretend to understand.

I tried to contact the author of the bot (b_bot) but apparently he has retired from Wikipedia editing and has just left his bot running to do random damage in his absence.

Frankly I don't really care if the page is there or not - it's Wikipedia's loss, not mine - but I confess I am getting rather sick and tired of the degree to which Wikipedia attempts to prevent anybody other than an "expert" from creating or modifying content and am inclined to give up on attempting to help out.

If somebody can explain to me quite what a "non-free image" means when related to a scan I took myself and made freely available, and quite what "sources" are needed to list the contents of a collection that I have in front of me, then I'd be happy to attempt to fix whatever these imagined "problems are". Philsp (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading the edit history correctly, the text you added was deemed to be a copyright violation and was removed by The4lines (talk · contribs), not by a bot. There's information at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Supplying evidence of non-infringement as to how you can contest this if you feel the claim was made in error. Also, the bot that tagged your image was created by B (talk · contribs), who last edited two days ago. In any event, as the image is currently in use, I've deleted the template on the page for the image as per the instructions included with that template, but the article itself still needs at least one source added. DonIago (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your speedy reply. I looked at B's talk page and it said he was effectively retired and not interested in other than a small range of requests from other editors.

Thanks for deleting the template on the page, but I still don't know what sort of source is required or how to add it. The text I added was the "advertising blurb" I wrote for the book when I added it to lulu back in 2011 and which has been used (without my permission) by sites such as Google and Amazon and I have no idea how I can be violating copyright on something I wrote nor how I can prove that I wrote it.

Which brings me back to the main point. This is a book that I created and published and, as such, the ultimate source for information on the book will always be me. Demanding some other form of source is sheer nonsense, to put it politely. Philsp (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philsp: The Proofreaders' Page and Other Uncollected Items was converted to a redirect in [1]. BLAR refers to WP:BLAR. We don't call it deletion when the page history is still visible and ordinary users can restore the former content as you did. Many articles have contributions from hundreds of users. The creator is usually not notified of conversions to a redirect. If a page is nominated for deletion where only administrators can undelete it then the creator is usually notified. You can use your watchlist to help keep track of edits to pages of interest. Articles about books should generally satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books) by having independent sources about the book. We are not a book catalogue but an encyclopedia with articles on selected topics which are deemed notable. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philsp, the article that you wrote about your own book is completely unreferenced which is a violation of the core content policy Verifiability, and therefore the article is in imminent danger of being deleted. When you write This is a book that I created and published and, as such, the ultimate source for information on the book will always be me, that indicates that you have a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia actually operates. You are actually the last person who should be editing that article, because you have an obvious conflict of interest, and that guideline says COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Your book is self-published on Lulu.com and self-published books are very rarely notable books. The most common way that a book becomes notable is if it has received multiple reviews by reliable sources. If you cannot provide references to significant coverage of your book in multiple reliable, independent sources, then a Wikipedia article about your book is not viable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let'd dial this one down a bit.

The Wikipedia entry for Fred Brown contains a number of pages listing contents of his books. A random example I looked at was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeymoon_in_Hell which has NO references at all to the book, simply a reference to an adaptation of one of the stories in the book and an external link to the ISFDb entry for it. Thirteen years ago, when I added the contents of TPP, I was simply following existing practice. As I have said, I have no particular personal interest in whether it is listed or not - I was simply trying to contribute to Wikipedia - but I would love clarification on why the entry for HONEYMOON IN HELL (and 1001 other similar entries) is OK when the entry for THE PROOFREADERS' PAGE is not. The contents can be "verified" by checking in the usual place - i.e. http://www.philsp.com/homeville/FMI/ZZPERMLINK.ASP?NAME=%27A_BROWN$_FREDRIC%27 - but it's hard to see how this adds credibility to the item.

I appreciate Wikipedia is not a book "catalogue" but it is very useful as a book "index" and the contents of books are, for many of us, "notable articles". When I am researching an author I frequently turn to Wikipedia first to see if there is a bibliography there and, frequently, there is. If "you" really don't like pages listing contents of books then there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pages that "you" need to delete.

I am also puzzled by the comment that "The creator is usually not notified of conversions to a redirect" - why on earth not? It only takes a second and would seem the courteous thing to do. The whole notion of people writing bots to go round hacking other peoples' contributions strikes me as the height of arrogance.

Anyway, I'll say no more. The book is indexed in the most reliable place for such listings and if "Wikipedia" decides it doesn't want the information then it is your loss, not mine. I don't know what hoops I need to jump through and, frankly, have more important things to do with my time than worry about petty Wikipedia squabbles. Philsp (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honeymoon in Hell is just one of 461,644 pages that have been marked as "needing additional references". You are correct in that there are tens of thousands of pages that could stand to be deleted under these criteria. The issue comes down to volume, motivation, and the fact that most of these articles never get any attention drawn to them. It is unfortunate that Wikipedia is the main place many people turn to for information that could be better stored elsewhere (Wikipedia:Alternative outlets?) but that is the point we have come to. Recon rabbit 16:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, which is much more constructive and well-mannered than some of the comments I have received. I confess I don't understand why you feel it is "unfortunate" that Wikipedia is "the main place many people turn to for information" - IMHO, that is precisely the strength and value of Wikipedia - i.e. that it "benefit(s) readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge". I find it disconcerting that a relatively small number of people seem to sit in judgement on the contributions of millions and decide whether or not an article is "worthy" or "appropriate" - to me this goes entirely against the philosophy of Wikipedia and threatens to damage it irreparably. Philsp (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Proofreaders' Page and Other Uncollected Items. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Harvnb refs

I added Harvnb refs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Za%27ura%2C_Syria&diff=1240521081&oldid=1240515422

But when I click on them it doesn't target the source in Bibliography, not sure what I did wrong. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to list all of the authors' surnames (4 authors max). Sulimani isn't the only author; don't leave Kletter out.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Supreme Deliciousness: I have just now fixed it for you.Davidbena (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phone IP blocked

Noticed, when I accidentally hit an edit icon, that my phone, not logged in, has been blocked, with the note: "disruptive editing". I don't usually log in or edit on my phone, and I don't think I've ever edited anonymously from it. And noone has had access to it. Logged in, it seems fine -- I'm logged in on it now to post this.

How do I find out what that block is about? Thanks! Tsavage (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably someone who has the same IP address as you was responsible for the disruptive edits, and the entire IP address was blocked as a result. Typically there will be a warning on the talk page of the IP address, and it will include a reason for the block. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought it might be an IP range thing. Cheers! Tsavage (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]