Help desk
< January 16	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 18 >

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.

January 17[edit]

publish the article[edit]

hey editors, i want to publish my article, please help me, also, i received comments that press release can't be used, linkedin can't be used, paid content can't be used, affiliated organizations can't be used. then what can is allowed to be used Nicoleahua (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Nicoleahua and see Reliable sources for details why you can't use those. Third-party or second-party, reliable, and neutral sources are the only ones that can be used. You can't use first-party sources. The subject must be notable enough for inclusion. Paid editing is also heavily discouraged, since you also have a conflict of interest. I highly recommend visiting the pages I linked for you in this reply in blue, and also read Help: Your first article. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 04:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Johnson Yeh

hi @Nicoleahua and welcome to the Help Desk! what can be used for notability are reliable sources that are independent (not affiliated or professionally connected to) from the subject that cover them in depth (not just a passing mention). for writing about people, these include reputable news agencies like the Associated Press and Reuters. a short list of common sources that can and can't be used as such can be found at perennial sources. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 04:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are my changes being undone ?[edit]

Any constructive changes are being undone randomly!

It seems to be a concerted effort to not allow even valid edits. 106.51.245.18 (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP106. It looks like other users disagree with your edits. I recommend leaving a short note on why you think they're improvements at Talk:Fraser Town, Bangalore, and waiting for others to agree with you before editing the article again. I also recommend using edit summaries, as edits that remove blocks of content without any explanation are usually undone. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 08:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamp help[edit]

I'm trying to use a reliably sourced video as a reference. However, I want to source it so that when you open it, it begins on a particular timestamp in the video itself. How do I do this? Zucat (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zucat: if it's a YouTube video, you can usually link a specific timestamp by appending "?t=X" to the end of the video's url, where X is the number of seconds into the video. It's also helpful to include the timestamp in the citation. If you use Template:Cite AV media, you'd do so using the minutes parameter. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 08:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Backlogs and dead external links[edit]

Once someone use the dead link template, it should appear in the WP:Backlog. However, how can I see the link from the backlog. This page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_dead_external_links is only sending me to the article but not the link itself. Should I try every links to see which one doesn't work ? Thank you. Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincent-vst: {{dead link}} should only be used right at the dead link. It says ^{[dead link]} on the rendered page. In Windows browsers you can search a page for a string with Ctrl+f. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tema Harbour[edit]

I have pictures of Tema harbour construction works during the fifties including picture of `last block laid` with inscription on 20 ton stone Saturday 27th September 1958. All photos taken by my late father. Do you want these pictures for inclusion in your web piece? Dont know how to contact you. 77.98.149.82 (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are contacting us now. Please direct questions about a particular article to its talk page, in this case Talk:Tema Harbour. For information on uploading images, please go to Files For Upload. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! More images for editors to chose from is generally a good thing. Images such as yours are kept on out sister-site Commons and you are welcome to make them available there. However.

You may be required to "prove" that you are the copyright holder of these images, and I don't know how that will work, exactly, in a case like this, but it should be possible though it may take some work on your part. Afaik, starting HERE is as good a way as any, but you should check the images you upload in the coming weeks, since they may be marked for deletion, and in that case you have to act to "save" them. Also, if you chose to upload these pics on Commons, don't mark them as "own work", that means "I'm the photographer" in this context. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor: It is great that you want to contribute these photos but I'm afraid there may be some hurdles to doing so. Ghana does not have Freedom of panorama in its laws, in addition to its copyright laws which have a term of 90 years after the death of the author. Assuming you are now the legal owner of the pictures by inheritance from your father, the latter part is OK but I think you should ask the experts at Wikimedia Commons about the FOP rules: the precise content of the images may be relevant. Their Help desk is at this link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted updates to our page[edit]

Hi there, I've just updated our organisation's wikipedia page: Officers' Association Because our user name references our organisation (the OA) the edits have been automatically deleted. I didn't know that I had to send the edits to be proof read by wikipedia before it would be accepted. I've read your 'help' articles and it says that I can request for the edits to be checked and then reinstated if they pass the checks. Can this be actioned? Many thanks in advance for your help. JaneO OA (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JaneO OA Further to @331dot's advice below, a quick look at that article shows it has zero reliable sources to back up the claims made in it. The single reference in the article is to your organisation's own web site, which is not considered a reliable source. I suggest that you carefully read WP:RS before attempting to have the article updated; then find some neutral sources (things which other unconnected people have published about your organisation) for each claim made, including your new ones, and list them on the article's talk page with your request. Bazza (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JaneO OA Your edits were undone, but not because of your username. The advice from Bazza is correct; please click on the "WP:RS" link and read all of that information. FYI, please don't think of that as your organization's Wikipedia page. Instead, it is Wikipedia's article about an organization, and you might be part of that organization -- but the article belongs to Wikipedia. It's not meant to sound rude, but it's a shift in thinking that will help you work with Wikipedia.

If the article does not gain some reliable, independent sources, it is likely to be nominated for deletion. David10244 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a key information box on the right-hand side of the wiki page?[edit]

Hi there, we'd like to add a key information box to the right-hand side of our wiki page in a similar format to the one featured on the Royal British Legion wiki page: Royal British Legion. We'd like to include the organisation's abbreviation, formation, founder info etc etc. Can you advise on how we do this? I can't find the info on your help sections. Thanks JaneO OA (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JaneO OA First, please read conflict of interest and make the appropriate disclosure on your user page(User:JaneO OA). If you are a paid representative of the organization(even if not specifically asked or paid to edit) the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure.

Please make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page (Talk:Officers' Association) detailing changes you feel are needed. Note that it is not "your page", but a Wikipedia article about your organization. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also please read up on what Wikipedia regards as a reliable source WP:SOURCE. The Association's own website isn't up to the job. Wikipedia needs references from independent sources. - X201 (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JaneO OA: It's called an infobox. If you click the "Edit" tab on Royal British Legion then it says {{Infobox organization.... That means it uses Template:Infobox organization. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JaneO OA The article is currently very sparse because its only source is its own website. If it were written today, it would be unlikely to be accepted as-is as it doesn't meet the notability guidance for organisations. It would be very helpful if you could add to its Talk Page any reliable sources which are WP:independent (for example newspaper articles), so others can improve the content. Although you should not create/edit the infobox yourself, some of its suggested content can come directly from your website (see WP:ABOUTSELF for the guidance). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Account[edit]

How do I delete my account. I clicked on the link for that, but it just took me somewhere else that is confusing. AuthorKJS (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi @AuthorKJS and welcome to the Help Desk! you cannot delete an account due to technical reasons, however you may just leave the account inactive which is a perfectly alright alternative. happy reading! 💜 melecie talk - 12:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your account can't be deleted, as it's needed for attribution, but you may wish to read about WP:Retiring. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Former Greek Royal bios[edit]

All members of the former Greek Royal family must be titled correctly. For example: Is the former Prince Charles who currently is King Charles titled King Charles of Britain and the America's? No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchism_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20revolutionary%20war%20officially%20ended,Kingdom%20being%20the%20last%20monarch.

Therefor all members of the former Greek royal family must be titled correctly as, like the USA, Greece abolished their monarchy. If any former members of the Former Greek Monarchy use former and abolished titles must be shown as a "pretender" or "former" royal. 2603:7000:4E3F:D700:454B:F732:7263:4D89 (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek royal family is still the Greek royal family, they just have no power or status. In any event, the best place to discuss this is the village pump. I also suspect you aren't the first person to do this and that there are prior discussions about it somewhere. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcis not correct! That is like saying King Charles is still King of the USA. 2603:7000:4E3F:D700:454B:F732:7263:4D89 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. As I said, this isn't the right forum to discuss it. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the referendum of 1974, all members of the royal family have been stripped of their honorary titles, based on Article 4 of the Greek Constitution. 2603:7000:4E3F:D700:454B:F732:7263:4D89 (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He can't "still" be King of the USA because he never has been. Bazza (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "King of USA" title. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the referendum of 1974, all members of the royal family have been stripped of their honorary titles, based on Article 4 of the Greek Constitution. 2603:7000:4E3F:D700:454B:F732:7263:4D89 (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the monarchy was abolished, but the royal family was not executed. They still exist. They have no power or status, but they exist. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of them no longer, although he is referred to as a "king", and called by his regnal name. Bazza (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Pretender Royal?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretender 2603:7000:4E3F:D700:454B:F732:7263:4D89 (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does the first sentence of the article you linked to say? Bazza (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this is about the titles of various biography articles such as

I agree those titles are sketchy, but not for the reason the OP mentioned. By default, we use regal names but not honorifics in article titles: for instance Constantine II of Greece (not "King Constantine"), Elizabeth II (not "Queen Elizabeth II"). Queen Victoria might be an exception due to the need to have a disambiguation page at Victoria. However, we use the most common name if there is one, hence Edward the Black Prince (not Edward of Woodstock).

I do not think the abolition of the monarchy is a strong consideration. Louis XVI was "citoyen Louis Capet" in late 1792, and anyone printing his name otherwise at the time would get in trouble, but the vast majority of history books etc. still refer to him as Louis XVI.

That being said, the question becomes what individuals #1-#5 are referred to by the majority of reliable sources, and what alternative titles we could use. "Pretender Pavlos" is not going to fly (that’s significantly more POV than "Crown Prince Pavlos"), but simply Pavlos is obviously a DAB page. Those royals don’t seem to use family names among themselves, but the French-Wikipedia page has an alternate title Παύλος Γλίξμπουργκ / Pávlos Glücksburg (from House of Glücksburg). I suppose that’s what on Pavlos’ ID card at Επώνυμο, but we’re getting into WP:OR territory.

I will post something at WT:GREECE and see what happens.

TIL that Constantine II was alive. Well, now he’s dead, but he was alive until last week.

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a neutrality disputed tag?[edit]

There is a certain article which is written with a very heavy bias towards the subject. How do I add a "neutrality disputed" tag to it? Any and all help will be appreciated. Nsn2635 (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsn2635 You should add the text {{POV}} to the article that you found, and also date the tag by writing the text followed by the date EX: {{POV|date=January 2023}} The Night Watch (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Appreciate your help! Nsn2635 (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... and, as the template page says: "... then explain your reasons on the article's talk page". - David Biddulph (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Informational Pages on Airlines[edit]

I constantly use Wikipedia to help with personal work I do at home and only at home. Many airline pages I find have so many discrepancies. By this I mean that the main page has one bit of information while the destination page has another bit of information that doesn't match. I understand that it is not easy to keep track of all the information. I also understand that for whatever reason not many people follow what should be and just post haphazardly. Plus, information can be wrong when obtained by the time it is placed on the page. Where, airlines are concerned it can be obsolete within minutes, that is just the way it is, and it cannot be changed. But at least it should all be consistent, if it is said in one place it should say it in another within the same subject. 2601:58B:C01:3D30:F4F9:84CC:C35E:DAED (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us which exact pages have which conflicting information, if you want us to fix it. Or even better, fix it yourself! You managed to post here, editing a page is not much harder. Just make sure to cite a reliable source for the information you want to add.

On a general note, yes, it’s hard to keep information consistent across pages. Statements that are at risk of being dated should used the special template {{as of}}. That generates a statement that "as of (date), (some potentially-dated information)" (which could be done by hand) but it also puts it in a special category that editors can patrol to check and update (which cannot, or not easily, be done by hand). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a directory - you are using Wikipedia information for a purpose Wikipedia was not really designed for. That also means that to a large degree some Wikipedia editors are trying to maintain information on Wikipedia at a level of detail beyond Wikipedia's purpose and as you correctly point out failing at it. Maungapohatu (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to refer to Joe Biden when describing an event that took place after he ceased to be VPOTUS and before be became POTUS?[edit]

I've been tweaking section Working definition of antisemitism#Competing definitions of antisemitism and noticed this quote from an external source: "more than 100 prominent Jewish leaders in a September letter to President Joe Biden". Now the problem is that the September in question was September 2020, ie a time when Joe Biden had ceased to be VPOTUS and had not yet become POTUS. AFAIK, past VPOTUSs and POTUSs continue to be referred to using their previous rank, but I don't know what is correct in a situation like this one, where we have an article which includes a quote published (in March 2021) once Joe Biden was POTUS, describing an event which occurred before he became POTUS. Help, please! Misha Wolf (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rank of president is for life, so President Obama is the correct address. As for vice presidents however, I can't find anything that says this is the case, although it appears to be an accepted norm with the addition of former somewhere nearby eg "former vice president Cheney" or e.g "...by vice president Cheney. The former vice president was..." - X201 (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I've realised that the point is moot as the title, whether correct or incorrect, occurs in a quote. So I'd like to add a clarification to the article:

making clear that the September in question is September 2020,
(possibly) clarifying that Biden was not yet POTUS at that time.

Is a Note the best way to do this? If so, how do I insert one? The visual editor doesn't seem to provide a way of doing this. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to put that information when introducing the quote, asssuming it is useful (otherwise, omit it). For instance: in a letter written in September 2020 to then-candidate Joe Biden but published in March 2021 after Biden’s inauguration... Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the problem is that such an intro covers pretty much the same territory as the quote. Also, the timeline is:

September 2020: The Nexus Task Force's letter was sent to Joe Biden
March 2021: The Nexus Task Force's definition of antisemitism was published
March 2021: The article, mentioning both events, appeared in The Forward

Is the inclusion of clarifying bits of text acceptable in a quote if it is placed within square brackets? For example:

The work of the task force "was endorsed by more than 100 prominent Jewish leaders in a September [2020] letter to President Joe Biden".

Misha Wolf (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Misha Wolf I don't see why you can't use the source for the information but paraphrase it so you don't need a direct quote. Then, since you are wikilinking Biden, you don't need to specify his rank. Thus you could have "In September 2020, more than 100 Jewish leaders sent a letter to Joe Biden endorsing the task force's definition [of antisemitism]". Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Thanks. Done. Misha Wolf (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Misha Wolf Glad to help. You added a "had" to the sentence which isn't needed and I have removed. I also suggest you remove the word "prominent", since the sources quoted don't mention the status of these individuals and you have indulged in WP:SYNTHESIS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull, I had included the word "had" as the sending of the letter took place before the publication of the definition but the two events are described in reverse chronological order. But if you think that it's not needed, then that's fine with me. Re the word "prominent", this had been part of the quotation until the recent change, which you kindly helped with. I've now restored the quotation marks around the words "more than 100 prominent Jewish leaders" to make clear that this is a quote. OK? Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete account[edit]

Can some sysop just completelly delete my account? Thanks Gabriel.N.Ish (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the answers in section #Delete Account above. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts aren't typically deleted for several reasons, you can simply stop using your account or place a retired tag on your user page. You may wish to read about courtesy vanishing as well. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 03:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

when will wikipedia help their editors imprisoned in Saudi Arabia?[edit]

Democracy Now on 1/17/2022 published a report that Wikipedia editors in Saudi Arabia have been imprisoned, one person was sentenced to 30 years, for criticizing the regime. When will Wikipedia speak up or at least provide legal assistance for staff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.29.86 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP73. While an important issue, this is not a question about how to use or edit Wikipedia, the focus of this page. You might like to join an open conversation on the issue here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Wikipedia editors are tens of thousands of volunteers around the World and not staff in the sense of https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the Democracy Now article. Even Wikipedia administrators are volunteers, and not employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. GoingBatty (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page is not opening[edit]

Hi Wiki Support, The page is not opening: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page&page=Marta+Grigorieva It says "The article that you're looking for doesn't exist." Is it deleted? How/if could I request republishing of this page. What are the next steps to do so?

Thanks, Marta Maroz1985 (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maroz1985, it was deleted in August of last year per the discussion at Articles for deletion/Marta Grigorieva. You can ask for a copy of it at WP:REFUND, or challenge the deletion via Wikipedia:Deletion review. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you are Marta Grigorieva, you should review our guideline on editing with a conflict of interest: WP:COI. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]