Help desk
< May 26	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 28 >

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.

May 27

ticketing scam

i just booked a rt ticket from cebu to sydney.i paid the ticket thru my paypal account, upon checking my pay pal account and charges were posted in my account. i called cebu pacific about my ticket and they said it's not yet paid and they want me to book another ticket which cost me more on the same flight.paypal is filing a case in my behalf to get my money back.thanks, canares.a2601:645:C100:50F0:8411:3B9C:CC3D:DD39 (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2601:645:C100:50F0:8411:3B9C:CC3D:DD39 Greetings. This is Wikipedia help desk and we sorry to hear about your situation; however, we are not able to help. You might want to contact paypal instead. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about reasons for Keith264's reversion of addition to "Further reading" of Attack on Mers-el-Kébir

Keith 264 persists in reverting my addition without giving any reason, other than "not notable", which is difficult to understand. Jean Boutron was secondary artillery officer on the Bretagne, and was miraculously fished out of the oily water. His account of the days and hours waiting to be shelled by HMS Hood, and of the negotiations, and of the aftermath of the disaster, is unique, as is also his reaction : "The British have sunk me, but the Germans are sleeping in my bed, and I shall therefore join the British to continue the fight". Which he did, after being very active in the Alliance network, working with the Intelligence Service. His book is surely worthy at least of a place in "Further Reading" ? Christopher Thiéry Christopher Thiéry (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that Keith-264 often has a harsh approach but in this case he certainly has a point. I fail to verify the existence of this book... The Banner talk 11:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: It certainly does exist: here is an entry at the National Library of Australia. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, as it is on the French title. So, yes, the book exists. Then Keith can explain why he calls the addition spamming. The Banner talk 13:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Christopher Thiéry and Keith-264: At this point it would be better to discuss the addition of this book in the article's talk page so that a consensus can be reached. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the comments above demonstrate the book is not notable, the repeated addition of it without discussion is spamming. Quite why this is "harsh" I don't know. Keith-264 (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability refers to articles. Books in a Further reading section need only provide the reader with "additional and more detailed coverage of the subject of the article" and be topical, balanced, reliable.... See WP:Further reading. MB 17:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secondhand-Merchandise

Need help to do an article about this small online store (https://secondhand-merchandise.com) selling new and used merchandise that accepts bitcoin and Litecoin for payments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampuzo (talk • contribs) 13:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sampuzo: This store would only merit an article if it gets significant coverage(not just mere mentions or basic announcements) in independent reliable sources that show how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable business, written at WP:ORG. If there are no such sources, it would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change got reverted as "not constructive"

I recently added information to Template:AM4_chipsets about the new X570 chipsets. This change got reverted pretty quickly: my change, reverting change

The user who reverted the edit left me a talk message (User talk:Dunedan), stating that my edit "did not appear constructive", but didn't explain why he considered it not constructive. So that's question now: Why was my edit considered not constructive? What should I've done differently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunedan (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this with that user, either on your talk page, or the usr's talk page, or the template's talk page. make sure you inform the user of you discussion. -Arch dude (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, the user that reverted you is actually User:CLCStudent. I'll take a look at the added info for you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was good and has been restored. The revert of your edit was a mistake as shown at your talk. In general, the correct place to discuss an edit (or a revert of an edit) is on the talk page of the page where the edit occurred. However, where someone has left you a standard message, responding as you did at your talk is good. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding page summary

When I search on the main Wikipedia screen I see a small summary (for example, when I search Elizabeth II, a small summary saying 'Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms' appears under). I have created a page ,that is up on the English Wikipedia (Iona Lake), and I would like to add one of these one line summaries. Is this an automatic process or will I be able to add it? And if so, how do I? Thank you Willbb234 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Willbb234 You need to add the {{short description}} template to the article, although it does eventually get brought in through wikidata. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I have read and added a short description! Regards Willbb234 (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: That worked fine. I changed the short description slightly to add the year of birth, which is the helpful for biographies of living people.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why “Fewer than 30 watchers” instead of exact number?

This is not an urgent question, I am just curious about why the exact count of watchers is not displayed if below <30. --Chanc20190325 (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a security-type feature; one can more "safely" vandalise an unwatched page or a page with very very few watchers. See this edit, in which I reverted vandalism that was more than two weeks old, and if I'd not happened upon the article in the process of adding content to a large batch of similar articles, the vandalism might have been there for months. They don't want to make it clear how many people are watching a page, since 30 is a significant number and 0 or 1 isn't. The same reason is the basis for restricting Special:UnwatchedPages access to administrators only. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]