Help desk
< July 23	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 25 >

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 24

Question about RS

Probably a stupid question: Does the fact that a nonfiction book is for children (as opposed to adults) affect its reliability at all? - Purplewowies (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terms: ANF: Adult non fiction, JNF: Junior non fiction Can't imagine why it would. Non fiction is, after all, non fiction. If the answer to "why is the sky blue" is Rayleigh scattering in an ANF book but "because blue's pretty" in a JNF then the JNF is unreliable, otherwise JNF is just a simplified, but still factual, version of the same facts. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the author is an established expert, or the work is published by a respected publishing house, I'd say it's fine, with exceptions for uses like Tonywalton noted above, and any case where multiple reputable ANF sources disagree with a JNF source. Have a look at WP:SOURCES for what counts as a reliable source. TimofKingsland (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much, but I thought I'd still ask to be sure. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends entirely on the topic covered. Books for children tend to be vulgarisations, have a pedagogical object rather than having as their object the accurate reporting of the current standing of the field, are usually two or three major innovations out of date, often reflect simplistic state (or other social) ideology. They are incredibly problematic. For example, if you suggested using a vulgarisation of history aimed at children to discuss early modern class in Europe, I would suggest strongly and vehemently that the work fails to meet the standards required for the claim. (There are other problems, such as children's works not reflecting the WEIGHT and coverage, which means they are undesirable in almost any non-stub article) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Okay. There's a small bibliography in the back and a further reading section, and all the books listed there are adult books. I might just check those out, especially since I'm required to buy one of the books listed there for a class I'm taking next semester. I also realized, upon being able to look at the article I was going to put the information in for the first time in a month or two, that the information is already in there. Oh well. :l - Purplewowies (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a template name

Due to the possibility of subpages existing in talk space, Talk:A/B testing is a subpage of Talk:A. Some time back, I found a comparable page with a template saying something such as "Due to technical limitations, this is a subpage of [pagename], but it's really not". I can't now remember the template name (or the name of the page where I found it); can someone supply it? Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Correct title}} or {{Correct title|put_the_correct_title_here|reason=/}} Arcandam (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I meant. Talk:A/B testing should exist precisely where it is, and {{Correct title}} is meant for pages such as Book A Novel, which ideally would be at Book: A Novel. Looking for a template that explains why Talk:PageA/PageB is a subpage of Talk:PageA when it's actually the talk page for a different article. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked some of these places, but couldn't find anything except the aforementioned {{correct title}}. Perhaps this list will help:

— BigNate37_(T) 02:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dreduardoa

Is there someone who can assist me with my recent article ...to see if it merits posting on Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dreduardoa/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreduardoa (talk • contribs) 01:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at Dreduardoa's talk. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS as source?

Can the OTRS system be used by the subject of an article to make a statement similar a verified self-published source? For example, if a RS said that X wrote a song, but X denies it and there are no RS saying so, could X use the OTRS system to create a reliable statement saying otherwise? It doesn't seem to mentioned as a use of the OTRS system on WP:OTRS, but I imagine it could be used for this (as in "However, X denied this in a statement made to Wikipedia in 2012"). TimofKingsland (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can only use published sources, and I don't think OTRS is considered "published" RudolfRed (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly positive OTRS could be used for exclusion of false information. It just couldn't be used for inclusion of info. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c x 2) If there are no RS saying so, just remove the claimed false statement and it can't be added back without a reliable source being added in conjunction through an inline citation verifying the disputed fact. See WP:BURDEN. This seems to moot the example reason you gave for the use of the statement in your question. Regarding other uses, it's an interesting question. Is it publication? That is, we require that sources for material be published so anyone can verify for themselves. This is not what we normally mean by publication but it is publication in a sense, if the OTRS member goes on record as stating that they verified the subject is the person they claim to be and what they allege. How much reliability do we then assign to the fact checking and possibility of inaccuracy of the OTRS member's verification itself, since its second hand? And even if we accept that it is indeed the subject who makes a statement, it is then a primary source, which we don't use over secondary sources in most case. Anyway, quite a novel question, I can't imagine this would be useful often even if we accept that this is verifiable publication given the protection of WP:BURDEN.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your answers. I'm talking about situations where there is already a RS cited saying something that X has come to Wikipedia to dispute. It's X's dispute that has no RS. If X tries to edit the article, their edits will likely be reverted either for removing notable material or making unsourced claims or personal comments. In cases like these the encyclopedia and BLPs would be more accurate if subjects had a way to make verified, public and uneditable statements to Wikipedia. I can see it being especially useful in cases where the subject wanted to correct or update information about themselves that is cited to one or more RS. TimofKingsland (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that kind of thing is getting way beyond our purpose as a compilation and aggregation of published, verifiable information. If the subject cares sufficiently about it, they should take it to the press to get published by a reliable source that we can then use. "Somebody that Wikipedia trusts, verifies that somebody thaey are sure is the subject, sent them a private e-mail, which says the published reliable sources are wrong!" just sounds bogus and inappropriate to our spirit. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an extent to which this might be necessary. For example, I know for a fact that there is an otherwise reliable newspaper source that lists a High School teacher as my father. An issue like this would need to be cleared up on Wikipedia, but it wouldn't be something where an article needs to be published on it in the press. There are specific instances where I believe OTRS should be used to exclude information if the subject of commentary says it is false. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience as an OTRS agent, the answer to the original question is no. However, could we remove material? Ryan's example is excellent. Suppose we have an article on Ryan and the only published source for his father is the one he mentions, which he says is wrong. I'd argue that we could remove the material but we couldn't replace it with the correct parentage. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about the following related case. Can the objection in an OTRS to a fact being public in a wikipedia article be added to that wikipedia article? (as part of a section on how the group attempts to hide that fact)Naraht (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you use a private email that you can't verify as a source? Nope. Even an email to you with permission to use it couldn't be used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP Address Mix-up: How do I fix/remove this

I have moved in to this new apartment since Jan 2012 with a new internet connection, and I have this laptop since 2010. I am getting a "new message" tab for few days with the wikipedia page, where the messages are some 2007 cautionary notes about the owner of this IP address doing some vandalism in some wikipedia page. How do I make this message and the "you have new message" tab disappear? Can I do that without creating an account? (I did not own this IP address in 2007.)

Thanks in advance, AR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.229.223 (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on your ISP and your connection method, you may be able to change your IP address by disconnecting and reconnecting from the Internet. If that doesn't work, I would recommend getting an account if you're worried about it. The new message alert should go away once you've visited "my talk" up the top of the page though. TimofKingsland (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recovering password when e-mail has changed

I created an account some years ago, so don't want to create a new one, but I changed my e-mail a year ago and your password recovery system is presumably sending the message to my old, dead e-mail. What can I do to recover my password, or change/modify my account to give my new e-mail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.200.182 (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Wikipedia:Contact us/login problems states that the automatic e-mail password reset is the only way to recover lost passwords, and that we are unable to look up details of e-mail addresses or passwords. You need to either remember the old password or regain access to that e-mail address. BigNate37_(T) 05:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't make any edits, you can usurp it. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having problems editing the article on the term: PHAT.

I looked up the word Phat on here and it has several deffinitions. However, it does not have the most common deffinition for the word. The most common use for the word today is: "Pretty Hot And Tempting". It is just used as slang. But that is the only way I've ever heard the word used.

For example, guys might look at a girl and notice that she is very attractive and skinny, so they may say to each other: "OMG, she is so PHAT!"

Anyway, I tried to add this deffinition to the listing of PHAT and there is no way to edit this entry. Down at the bottom of the page, it doesn't say EDIT and I can not add this extra information on the term phat.

Please help and/or fix this, by adding that deffinition to the term Phat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.53.246 (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link to edit a page is at the top on the right, but please don't add this to the Phat ~~article~~ disambiguation page. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon or usage guide. TimofKingsland (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, that reeks of folk etymology (see also backronym) and lacks any kind of reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That definition is already on the Wiktionary page for "phat". - Purplewowies (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a Table of contets

Hi everybody I'm trying to find a way how to add a TOC for my new page, I found only a horizontal TOC

. I dont need this. I even couldn't find any TOC source code.

And I want to know how to Connect header and sub-headers (sub-sections) with TOC or it is doing automatically.

I want to use a Vertical TOC with sub-header, no numerical.

TOC like are in actors pages.

Thank,

Haik

Hi Haik. If you format your headers correctly (like this: ==Header 1== ===Header 2===) then a table of contents will generate automatically after you've put three of them in. If you've got less than three subsections, just put __TOC__ where you want the table to appear. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's four headings, not three. Floating Boat (the editor formerly known as AndieM) 11:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah, I think you're right, actually. Thanks. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a page

can you create a Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyedavey (talk • contribs) 09:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I added a new section header to separate the question from the one above it) Why not? Floating Boat (the editor formerly known as AndieM) 11:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Starting an article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see after asking this question you started a submission at Articles for Creation. You will need to cite to reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject of the article which both verify the information content and show notability of the company for this to be accepted. I am fairly skeptical you will be able to do so for this topic which appears to be a local business like millions of others. Please also note that the article must be written from a neutral point of view both as to facts included and the form of the language used.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ethical Hacking worth taking as career?

I want to take Ethical Hacking as a career but being related to hacking, parents not allowing as they consider it to be risky as I could get involved in crime work without I knowing it.

Please could you enlighten me on this?

I am really interested in doing something creative in the field of computers and this field of Ethical Hacking has attracted me a lot.

Please guide me on this........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.61.79 (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. Roger (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref name doesn't work for multiple names

The following four sentences deliver only one reference:

=======================================================

The current debt-ceiling may also expire "as early as December" 2012.^[1]

The Tax Relief Act of 2010 and its continuation contain extensions.^[2]

It mandates one trillion dollars over nine years.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).

The extension is also set to expire at the same time.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).

^ Romans, Christine (July 21, 2012). "What is the Fiscal Cliff". Your Money (Television News Series). CNN.
^ {{Citation| title=Congress passes extension of payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits |date=February 17, 2012 |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57380261-503544/congress-passes-extension-of-payroll-tax-cut-unemployment-benefits

========================================================

Please edit this section. Because it contains two 'ref names' (one for Romans and one for Congress) and each name is used twice, it should deliver two items in the reflist: one for the Romans reference, containing two back pointers, and one for the Congress reference, again containing two back pointers. This is what I want.

If you change both of the 'ref name "Congress"'s to simply 'ref's (duplicating Congress's Citation templete), the reflist will produce three items: one for Romans with two back pointers and two identical references for Congress. I don't want this.

What am I doing wrong? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have left out the equals signs. The syntax is <ref name="Congress">...</ref>. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) John has already pointed out what I was going to point out, but I'll note that you also left out the closing }} in the citation template for the "Congress" ref. Deor (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had only used one reference at a time before. Apparantly, it works with no equal sign, in that case. Who knew? (WP:REFNAME has got it correct.) Thanks a lot. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a space in front of each of the "=========" lines, so they don't create spurious section headers. Rojomoke (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Conflict of Interest and Revisions

7-24-2012 Maine

Dear Wikipedia;

I am puzzled by two recent actions and messages from LadyofShalott and Beyond My Ken about my Wikipedia entry, “Donald K. Fry.” (Please note that I write under two names: Don Fry and Donald K. Fry.) The entry is at Donald K. Fry

1. Both editors are warning me of conflict of interest. I did not create the Wikipedia entry on me, but in the past, I have corrected it, mostly little facts. No one objected. When I published my recent book, “Writing Your Way,” in March 2012, I added it to the entry. No one objected. Then last week, I added my freshly published novel, “How to Shoot Your Father.” Suddenly, I get these notices about conflict of interest. Please advise me. Is it a conflict of interest to correct and add details to the entry on me? How else would we keep it correct and updated?

It is a conflict of interest, and in principle, you shouldn't edit your own entry. Instead, if you feel something needs correcting or updating, you should mention it on the article's talk page (though in my experience, this generally has no effect). Maproom (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Beyond My Ken edited my Wikipedia entry severely. He removed a lot of detail and the section on my journalism career and publications. He also removed my latest book, “How to Shoot Your Father,” and a reference to me as a novelist. He’s rewriting and thinning my biography, and I don’t understand why. Please advise.

Thanks.

I think that some of these changes which you attribute to User:Beyond My Ken were in fact made by User:Drmies. You can check by looking at the article's history page. I do not feel competent to judge whether they were justified. Maproom (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom is correct, my edits to the article were more gnomish ones about formatting, etc. I did point Dr. Fry to WP:COI and WP:AUTO as relevant policies, so I'm not sure why he would come here with his confusion, since those policies seem quite clear. I'm sure that someone of his intelligence can see the potential problems with having subjects write their own articles in an encyclopedia intended to be hew to a neutral point of view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

≈≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald K. Fry (talk • contribs) 16:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello there. I have been looking through the editing history of that page. I do agree with most of the content-removal by other editors. You will notice that in the edit summaries of the other editors the words "not a resume", "non-notable", and "overly promotional" appear over and over again. As a writer and educator, I am sure you would not object to reading the documentation that Wikipedia has produced on these issues in their entirety. For most editors, knowing every single word of these policies is not completely necessary, but for someone who is editing an article about himself, this is extremely important. If you follow the three links above, you will be taken to the relevant documentation. There is simply to much material for me to reproduce here.

I would follow Maproom's advice and try to solve it on the article's talk page (though to really get any answers you will have to contact the editors in question on their talk pages directly as well). hajat vrc @ 16:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this situation is and always has been a conflict of interest. However that does not prohibit you from being involved. Simply having "Conflict of Interest" shouted at you does not mean you must cease all editing and leave, and if editors have been over-zealous in alerting you to the conflict of interest then I apologize for that. Regardless of what what has happened to this point, our Conflict of Interest guideline is an intricate document and not a simple rule. It has information on how to proceed, what to do in case of disputes, and helpful links such as Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, which you may wish to read. There are legitimate ways you can contribute, as outlined at WP:COI#Non-controversial edits, which is why you have not experienced resistance in the past. BigNate37_(T) 20:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Fry, as much as it pains me to find fault with an article on a fellow Anglo-Saxonist, I felt it was necessary to edit the article in accordance with our guidelines. The novel, for instance, should be referenced properly, not with the mere mention of "Amazon kindle". Other information was removed for similar reasons--not because you edited the article but because they were either not appropriate for an article on Wikipedia and/or because they were not properly verified and thus (in this case) added to the overall resume-like quality of the article (listing blogs and articles, for instance). You'll note, I hope, that I have added reviews of the books published in peer-reviewed articles, and as such I am confident that my work is more constructive than destructive. Incidentally, I'm looking for a copy of Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg : A Bibliography but so far without luck. Best, Drmies (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main page

hello, Why doesn't Wikipedia display fair use images on main page for encyclopedic purpose? is that cannot be qualified as fair use under copyright law, or just under Wikipedia's own policy? Puramyun31 (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that rule. Do you have a link? RudolfRed (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Ed, Edd n Eddy article. It was a Today's featured article on July 23, which includes fair use character image. Puramyun31 (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion from 2008 at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions/Archive 1#Removing exception in policy for "Main Page". It seems that fair use images were sometimes allowed on the main page before then, but not since. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it is Wikipedia policy, I believe that it's also based in US Fair Use law. While we can reasonably justify use of such an image on the actual article, it's a little harder to do so on the main page, which generates much more traffic and doesn't provide anywhere near as much detail about the subject (and may not make reference to the image at all). Fair use law/our policies also require that we provide a detailed justification for every page on which the image is used on the image's description page, and it's too much hassle to do this for every fair use image we want to put on the main page when we know the image is only going to be there for 24 hours anyway. If someone really wants pictures that badly, they can read the full article or make do with whatever freely licensed image we're able to provide. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but in general our implementation of Fair Use policy is much more restrictive than what is probably necessary. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that it's intentional. After all, I would never suggest we try to get away with as much fair use of restrictively licensed content as possible—that's contrary to the goal of building a free encyclopedia. Our main page is the front door, so to speak, and we want to showcase content which is not only high quality, but the content which best exemplifies what we're about. That's why I'm not allowed to edit it =P BigNate37_(T) 17:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section v subsections on references

Hi, can someone tell me if it's OK to name a section "Notes and references" and then name a subsection directly beneath it "Notes" (which stores the footnotes) and another subsection called "References" which stores the citations. For an illustration of what I mean see here, here and here. I can find no mention against this in MOS or any other guideline surrounding references and footnotes. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a deep hierarchy. If you want a notes section and a references section, they can both just be standalone level 2 headings, as is the case in your W. S. Gilbert example. The relevant part of the MoS is at WP:FNNR (i.e. foot notes, notes and references). While it's not explicit, I read it as implied that those sections are to be top-level sections and not subsections. BigNate37_(T) 17:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what you're looking for is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes_and_References, but it sounds as though if you do wish to separate it between citations and proper footnotes, both sections should use level two headers (as in this section) and the proper footnotes should come before the citations. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, are Stanley Holloway and Dan Leno incorrect in there layout? -- Cassianto^Talk 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:FNNR, "The title(s) of these sections depend on which of the three types of item are present, and whether the two types of footnote are combined or separated." Technically, they are in the same section (the subtitles use term/definition format, not subsection format, which is why I didn't notice them looking at the TOC before). Since the actual notes and references are separate from each other, my reading of the MOS is that they ought to be separate sections. However in a case like this where the article is a featured article, there's likely at least one talented editor keeping an eye out for the article so I might dig around in the history and on the talk page a little to see why it is like that. BigNate37_(T) 17:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's great. I only asked because I have now adopted this style throughout my edits. Both my mentor's are away, so unable to ask them. By the way, they are the talented ones! Thanks for the quick and helpful reply's. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Powerball scratch off game.

How do you enter for second chance drawings for this scratch off. It does not show the game on second chance drawings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.53.131 (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Floating Boat (the editor formerly known as AndieM) 17:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming category:Category:Back to the Future

Hi, I believe that Category:Back to the Future should be renamed as Category:Back to the Future (franchise), matching the category's article. But I could be wrong.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may nominate a category for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion even if you do not intend for it to be deleted, and those most familiar with the application of the relevant policy and guidelines will collaborate to determine the best course of action. Instructions for listing a category are on that page. BigNate37_(T) 17:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lost access to the email used to register on wikipedia

I lost access to the email address I used to register on wikipedia. How can I retrieve my login details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.48.192.101 (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password? is says: If you did not enter an e-mail address, or if the stored address is no longer accessible, you will be unable to regain access to your account, and thus will have to create a new account under a different username. hajat vrc @ 17:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) For short, you can't. The only way to get your login details back is to regain access to the email address, because there is no other way to get your login back. AndieM (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you made no edits with the account, in which case you can usurp it. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on your e-mail provider, you may be able to regain access to your account if you forgot your password or it was hacked. It depends on what you mean by "lost access." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidSSabb (talk • contribs)

Report vandalism

Hi, an unknown IP user with this numeral IP address (86.157.246.15) just vandalized this article, Rachel Dawes, probably just because he or she is a fan of Katie Holmes. Thought you might want to know.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism happens hundreds, if not thousands, of times a day here. The thing to do is to revert to a good version of the article (which is it looks like you've done already) and then inform the user of what they've done and why it's wrong. You can do this by using any one of the vandalism notification templates. If the vandalism is an ongoing problem with that user or that article, then there are a couple more options. You can request that the user be blocked or you can request that the page be protected. Please see WP:VANDALISM for more on this. Dismas|^(talk) 20:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to assume good faith! I looked at those edits, and while they weren't an improvement, it's possible the person meant well. BigNate37_(T) 21:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I put the vandalism notification template on IP address talk page, anyway.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second time this week!!!!!!!!!! Another user with this IP address (86.181.77.36) did the exact same thing. I just requested protection from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Please do something!!!!!!!!!!!!--NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I am editing this page but for some reason I'm having a problem taking the word, "User" off the beginning of the name, Eric Bellinger. Also, I want to put a picture up but can't seem to find where the option is to do that.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricBellinger (talk • contribs) 20:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you've done is to create a user page for yourself. That's why it says "User:" much like my own user page which is at User:Dismas, for example. If you'd like to write an article about Eric Bellinger, then you would need to click on that link there and start editing. Whichever you've intended to do, create a user page or create an encyclopedic article, you should probably rewrite it. Please see WP:USERPAGE for a user page or WP:YFA for help creating your first article. Dismas|^(talk) 20:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Eric, and welcome to Wikipedia. The reason your page has "User:" on the front of it is because it is a page for your user account. Our relevant guideline, Wikipedia:User pages, states "User pages are for communication and collaboration. While considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages, they are community project pages, not a personal website, blog, or social networking medium. They should be used to better participate in the community, and not used to excess for unrelated purposes..." If you instead intended to create an encyclopedia article about yourself, please note that this is a conflict of interest. One of our guidelines,Wikipedia:Autobiography, explicitly discourages writing autobiographies here at Wikipedia. ~~Lastly, I have left you a welcome message on your talk page which has links that are just generally helpful to new editors.~~ (Dismas beat me to it, actually.) BigNate37_(T) 20:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This exact topic looks familiar. Someone else asked the same thing yesterday see here. Wesley Mouse 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fanpov

Someone is continuously blanking Fanpov template, I have reverted thrice and then stopped, the page is currently blank, need some help: Template:Fanpov --Tito Dutta ✉ 21:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user was trying to remove the banner from Elizabeth Turk. I (and a couple other users) told them what they were supposed to do, and it seems that they've gotten it. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I guessed it when they wrote edit summary in last edit. I also mentioned it in his talk page! Thanks! --Tito Dutta ✉ 21:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No edit links on talk page sections

The discussion page Talk:PID controller is acting strange. There's no table of contents; a "show" button in the info box reveals a huge amount of content that has supposedly been archived; there are no "edit" links on the individual sections. I can't tell what's going on. Spiel496 (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with [1] to avoid transclusion of Talk:PID controller/Archive 1. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[0-1] Romans, Christine (July 21, 2012). "What is the Fiscal Cliff". Your Money (Television News Series). CNN.

[1-2] {{Citation| title=Congress passes extension of payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits |date=February 17, 2012 |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57380261-503544/congress-passes-extension-of-payroll-tax-cut-unemployment-benefits

[1]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 July 24

Contents