Wikipedia:Help desk

Wikipedia help desk
  • This page is only for questions about how to use or Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.

  • New users: While this is a good place to ask questions, new users may prefer to ask for help at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with ing, article creation and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
Are you in the right place?

May 24[]

list of orphaned pages with incoming links[]

I am actually interested in helping de-orphaning the orphaned articles and I understand why AWB is not used to auto de-orphan to catch possible articles that should be deleted / merged or otherwise. Hence I just like a list of such pages so I can work on individual articles manually, reading and fixing it. So in short, a list of orphaned articles (tagged with category:orphan) with incoming list. appreciate if the list can be placed on my sandbox! Thanks --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Xaiver0510: Wikipedia uses the term "orphan" is a special sense: see Wikipedia:Orphan. It means "an article without incoming links", the articles you are asking for do not exist. Alternatively, I don't understand what you are asking. -Arch dude (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Arch dude:Perhaps I was not very clear. I am looking for a way to generate a list of articles wrongly tagged as orphan (aka in Category:All orphaned articles) but actually have incoming links. There are articles which are tagged orphans but actually have incoming links (aka not orphans, example Alan Beaumont (footballer)). So specifically, I am asking for help to generate a list which fulfills such conditions. Thanks --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

using photos[]

Hello, I run a small (bimonthly)railway paper in the uk. I would like to use a photo from your Union Pacific Big Boy article in my next issue. Are there any restrictions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingads1 (talkcontribs) 02:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Short answer: Almost certainly but you must attribute the image. Long answer: Images here are under various copyrights. All can be used by you, but each is under its own type of license with its own rules. IF you click on the Image, you will see a bigger version of it ans a "details" button. Click on that button to see the copyright situation. In most cases, it's CC-BY-SA. If so, and if your paper is in electronic form, just add "from Wikipedia" with a link to the URL fo the image. If your paper is physical paper, also add "from Wikipedia" and the URL in printed form. Some of our images are here under a "free use" justification, and are therefore NOT under the CC-BY-SA. We feel that these are legal for us to use and maintain on our computers in the US, but you would need to ask your own lawyers about use in the UK or use in a newsletter. -Arch dude (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
For the complete story, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. We did not make the copyright laws, which have become a real mess. We do however, try as hard as we can to comply with them. -Arch dude (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Is this the picture? [1]? Wow, that's a big locomotive. It IS under a license (CC-BY 2.0) you can use merely by attributing the photographer via a link as above. Note that it's stored at a higher resolution than we use to display in the Union Pacific Big Boy article, so you probably want to download the high-res version if you intend to print to paper, or an appropriate-sized version for your specific e-pub. -Arch dude (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Kingads1: The only restrictions on this image are that you must give appropriate cr to the author, link to the image license, and indicate if changes were made. You could use this text: "Image by Aaron Pedersen ( Released under CC BY 2.0 (".Þjarkur (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Anglican Catholic Church.[]

Missionary Diocese of Australia and New Zealand.

Please delete Bp Denis Hodge who has now retired, insert Bp Ian Woodman.

Thank you and regards.

Bp Ian Woodman — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This, I presume, refers to Anglican Catholic Church#Leadership. The source for Denis Hodge still lists him, while this site calls Woodman the "Episcopal Vicar". I'm not familiar with the Anglican Church hierarchy/titles, so I'll leave it for someone else to resolve. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Seminole High School Notable People[]

To whom it may concern,

I work for Producer/Director James Fitzpatrick. For some reason, James and his brother Tony, whom both played Professional Football, was deleted from the Seminole High School page. Can you explain this mistake?

James Fitzpatrick's Wiki page connection to his last team:


Julienne Ford-Hammond Five Star Studios PR — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You must comply with the conflict of interest policy and the paid ing policy; the latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and not negotiable. They were removed from the list because they do not seem to have articles of their own(the links went to disambiguation pages, not articles, as there are other people with those names that do merit articles). If they merit articles, you should not be the one to write them. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
James is Jim Fitzpatrick (actor). This contains unsourced claims that he attended the school and played in both the CFL and NFL. He was not removed form the school article (Seminole High School (Pinellas County, Florida) but the attendance claim and the professional football claim all need to be sourced. There is no article for.Tony Fitzpatrick,but the claim that he played in the USFL is sufficient for notability as a pro athlete. Again, his attendance and his playing career would have to be reliably sourced. Meters (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Notability of books within an author's article[]

I'd like to know more about Wikipedia's policy on something. I recently ed an article to include a bibliography of an academics's works with ISBNs/OCLC links. These s were reverted and I was told they needed reviews to demonstrate they were notable enough (my wording, but it was something like that). I also self-help and self-published author articles; there are sometimes titles listed that only link to where someone can buy it at Audible or to the author's website. This seems to be a bit promotional to me and they don't demonstrate the notability that I gathered is required.
My questions:
1. Is this true across Wikipedia biography articles, or only in academia?
2. Should all listed creative works have a review? Or just most? Or what?
3. If so, how good of a reviewing body does it need to be? I imagine Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Booklist, and academic or trade journals are good. If not available, do blogs suffice, or not?
4. How many reviews is ideal?
5. If I can't find reviews, does a link to a bestseller list suffice to show notability?
6. Should titles that have no quality reviews on the open internet, JSTOR, etc., be removed from a list of an author's works?
Please point to the policy/policies on this.
Thank you!--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you'd tell us what the article was, DiamondRemley39. In any case, "notability within an article" is a bit of a misnomer; notability is only about whether or not a topic merits a standalone article and does not affect content in other articles. However, in the case of lists, some sort of non-arbitrary criteria is often needed. Authors can have dozens or hundreds of works, and sections in biographies are only supposed to list the most important ones, not necessarily all of them. Sometimes notability of individual items is a good criteria, sometimes not. See some guidance at MOS:BIB. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Finnusertop, for your reply and for including the link. You are right in it being a misnomer. I didn't like using "notability" but that was the best word I could come up with.
Mel Robbins is one article I mean. I intend to cite reviews for her works and create a separate "Books" section, but her "Audible Originals" don't have any reviews from typical reviewing sources (like Library Journal, Booklist, and Publishers Weekly) that I've searched; the works are not very book-like (they seem to be more like a paid podcast) and I'm thinking they should perhaps not be listed there as they seem to only be covered in user reviews. Ilaria Ramelli is the article on which my s were reverted; I then added reviews to verify the... worthiness? of including the list and all is now well there.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
As a rule of thumb, you don't need to cite reviews or the sort for a selected works list, unless someone asks for them. As always, if someone disagrees with your addition, it's always good to ask them what they think the problem is and what would rectify it. I see you started a discussion at Talk:Ilaria Ramelli. Others have since replied. You should continue to talk to them. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Finnusertop. I don't know that any more discussion at Talk:Ilaria Ramelli is required at this time, as I have done what is asked and my s were accepted. I mentioned the Ilaria Ramelli article because that is where I got the (apparently mis-)-conception that reviews are recommended. My current dilemma is more about the Mel Robbins page and whether those items are worthy of inclusion on selected works. I will review MOS:BIB before making changes and will discuss on Talk:Mel Robbins. Thank you again. -- DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The Manual of Style section on Lists of Works (MOS:WORKS) says "The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship, are encouraged..." --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Gronk Oz! That's what I needed!DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


I am a new wikipedia user who made a user only yesterday. That being said, today someone left a question on my talk board. How do you leave a question on someone else's talk board or respond to a comment or question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian1088 (talkcontribs) 18:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

First off, you need to read Wikipedia:Signatures and comply with it, as you haven't done with this post – no blame, you're new and it takes some time to learn all this stuff, but as it says at the top of this page, "Finally, please sign any statement you post here by placing ~~~~ at the end of your post."
If you had signed your post with the four tildes, you'd have seen that your signature (and a time stamp) was thereby immediately created. Your signature consists of your user name which is wikilinked to your user page, and (usually *) "(Talk)" which is wikilinked to your Talk page.
(* Some people customise their signatures to display different wordings, but hovering on them should reveal where the links really go.)
As you've seen, other users can go to your Talk page and leave messages and queries – if they do you can reply to their query there (just type on the next line, starting with one colon more than their query has to follow our standard indenting format). Since they've posted on your Talk page, they will likely check it to see if you reply. To get their attention, you can include in your reply "{{ping|Theirname}}" which will send them a notification, but only if you sign your post before saving ("Publishing") it.
Alternatively, you can go to their Talk page by clicking on the wikilinked "(Talk)" of their signature and leave a message (or reply) there, but note that it's easiest to keep the whole conversation on the page where it started.
Hope this helps. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it all with practice :-) .{The poster formerly known as} (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Al Jazeera[]

Please note that the byline when you Google Al Jazeera says: "Al Jazeera also known as JSC (Jazeera Satellite Channel), is a state-funded holocaust denial broadcaster in Doha, Qatar, owned by the Al Jazeera Media ..." - This does not appear on the main page but somehow on the Google description. Is this fixable as not correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure it's fixable, but only by someone at Google. They copy Wikipedia content, which is fine by us, and "enhance" it with other content, which we here at Wikipedia have no control over. Though most of the material they display is from here, almost all the mistakes in it are from other sources. Maproom (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the OP is seeing an extract from our own article Al Jazeera, under a link to it, which (the extract on Google) really does contain the words "holocaust denial". These were added by an IP at 12:58, 22 May 2019 and reverted by User @Zombles: 3 minutes later. I'm still seeing it as of this moment, but hopefully Google's webcrawlers will pick up the revised version soon. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The crawlers have revisited and the words "holocaust denier" no longer appear in Google. Dbfirs 20:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, the vandalism was reverted very speedily. Looks like it's all fixed now. Any ideas on how the crawlers work? Google already posts live extracts from articles when linking the article. Might be worth having some more information at a different location Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you,, for your correction. BTW that's a great IP address! I understand why you'd use it instead of registering an account. Maproom (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, 87 etc was my fixed home IP for a long time, but then my ISP was taken over by one using dynamic IPs that change every time I have occasion to reboot my router. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk: Daniel Sidney Warner[]

I have provided source references for this article; however, I believe Section 3 ("Movement that Followed") should not be part of Warner's biographical article. It describes the Church of God (Anderson), which is covered in greater detail by a separate Wikipedia article.

It's an issue because Warner staunchly denied that he was beginning a new religious movement, and in fact the writer of the biographical article aptly refers to him as an "initiator" of the Church of God. Also be aware that Warner's immediate successors differed from his teachings at several points. The present narrative doesn't cite them by name, which implies that these where his beliefs.

I see a couple of possible solutions:

1) Disambiguate Section 3 from the rest of the Warner article and incorporate it into the Church of God article. 2) Leave Section 3 with the Warner article, but expand it a bit to cite his successors by name and quote Warner's disagreement with them.

What would be Wikipedia's preferred way of resolving this?

Hoosierwriter131 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Hoosierwriter131

@Hoosierwriter131:This is an orial decision and you are the or: do what seems right to you. We try to avoid having too many rules. But since you asked: I would move the material and incorporate appropriately into the Church of God (Anderson) article, and then add a discussion of the issue in the Warner article. -Arch dude (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


What is wikipedia. What does it do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmccain (talkcontribs) 19:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please click on this blue link and read the article:Wikipedia.-Arch dude (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:About might be a more suitable page for new users. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

May 25[]

Unable to locate article Old Main (The University of Texas at Austin)[]

On April 21, 2019, I ed List of Old Main buildings to include Old Main (The University of Texas at Austin), which now shows as a red link, and I can't find it in the deletion logs. I'm pretty certain the article for UT's Old Main building existed at the time or I don't think I would have added it to the List article. Am I losing my mind, or not searching the right way? Here is my . Thanks, Lardofdorkness (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

try Main Building (University of Texas at Austin)‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, El Cid. That will be simple to fix, but I still think I'm losing my mind: Is there a way to tell if the red link article used to exist as a redirect page to Main Building (University of Texas at Austin)? I'm inclined to believe it did and that's what I was linking to, but I've slept too many times since making the to remember. Possibly just carelessness on my part -- thanks for indulging my curiosity. Lardofdorkness (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
There has never been an article or redirect at Old Main (The University of Texas at Austin). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Nor Old Main (University of Texas at Austin) nor Old Main (University of Texas). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding media[]

Attempting to add a scanned postcard (approx 115 years old) to a page, but comment tells me that it must have been photographed by me.

So why should I have to photograph the postcard and then add it - why can't I just add a scan?

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pc1894 (talkcontribs) 09:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pc1894: There is no legal difference between a photo and a scan of this postcard. The "photograph" referred to in the message is the photograph on the postcard itself, taken more than 115 years ago by an unknown photographer. In this case, you need to pick the correct copyright, which is not "I own the copyright" but instead is "Photograph is in the Public domain due to its age." -Arch dude (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Enabling auto information update[]

Is there a way to program Wikipedia to pull information from a specific website and post it here? To clarify, in the infobox the Employees entry contains only numbers. The reference link is right next to it and the actual number is in a specific field in the table. Is it possible to link these two? Regards, LukeA1 (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It's possible, but the main issue is probably whether that automation is needed in the first place. For instance, how frequent the number changes is vital on deciding that. If you believe it's worth it, you should ask at WP:BOTREQ. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a bad idea. Software running on WMF servers should not be in the business of interpreting the syntax of other random web sites. This would untimately lead to a maintanence nightmare. We probably have several hundred thousand organization infoboxes. Should we write a separate script to auto-maintain each one? I say no. But each interested organization might choose to write a script that runs on their computer to maintain their info in a single place, namely on Wikidata. Infoboxes would then pull from Wikidata. Centralizing structured info on Wikidata is a good idea since that data can be used across all Wikipedias, not just the English Wikipedia.-Arch dude (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Zig-Zag Rolling Papers[]

Hello i came to your page to see if i could get info on rolling papers but the packs i have are not mentioned Gary— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Mckerracher (talkcontribs) 12:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Gary Mckerracher: there is a general article about Rolling paper, but it does not describe individual brands. But there is also List of rolling papers which does include Zig Zag, thought it has only very limited information. There is a lot more information about the company, and a little about its products including the papers, at Zig-Zag (company). If that is still not sufficient, at the bottom of that latter article is a link to the company's own official Web site. I hope this helps.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
( conflict) @Gary Mckerracher: Hello, not every product or manufacturing company can have a page on Wikipedia. There are fairly stringent notability guidelines which have to be satisfied first. The best known brand of rolling paper is probably Rizla and there is a Wikipedia page here. More information on Zig Zag can be found at List of rolling papers#Rolling papers. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.). Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Eagleash, I think rolling papers may be a regional/country thing. Here in SW Ohio, the best known brand in the 1980s was definitely Zig Zag -- everyone I knew had a pack in the glove compartment -- and they're a cheapish brand that can probably be bought anywhere cigarettes are sold. It's not a topic of high interest to me at this point in my life :) but I would think if the OP wanted to do some research, they could certainly find enough sourcing to prove notability of Zig Zag. --valereee (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Rizlas are so common elsewhere that the name has virtually become a generic term for rolling papers, like Hoover for vacuum cleaner or Biro for ballpoint pen or Sellotape. Eagleash (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Eagleash, hahahahaha none of which generics are commonly used here. Most could guess what Hoovering means, but only those who read a lot of non-US content know Biro and Sellotape! Harry Potter fans could probably guess Sellotape. We use Bic and Scotch tape for generics. --valereee (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there's a whole World outside America (and Ohio). Eagleash (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Mediawiki namespace redirect[]

Can anybody look at WP:AFC/Redirects#Redirect request: MediaWiki:Title blacklist. I don't know what to do with this redirect request. I am asking an admin's opinion on the matter as they are the ones who can Mediawiki pages. Thanks. If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{u|331dot}} to your message, and signing it. Sincerely, Masum Reza📞 17:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Which picture is suitable?[]

Hi! I thought of uploading a better picture of British sailor and Titanic survivor Harold Bride and uploaded two pics to Commons but don't know which is more suitable for the article. Can anybody help me choose? Bride 1 Bride2. Thank you and kind regards!. --LLcentury (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe that Bride1 is best because it shows his uniform. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, Perfect I added that one, if there's another opinion feel free to give your opinion. Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Dynamic IP[]

An anonymous user with a dynamic IP address is removing reliably-sourced height & the relevant sources, along with replacing them with the height which is supported by UGC & other poor sources, thereby creating BLP-related issues. I have opened a relevant thread – see Talk:Manushi Chhillar#Height – and asked them to discuss it on the talk page. But their IP address changes each time, and I am forced to repeat the whole process again. The article will most probably not get protected as the disruption is low. So, is there any way to make the IP user discuss their concerns at the talk page? - NitinMlk (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

May 26[]

Regarding s.[]

Shamsheer Vayalil ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shamsheer vayalil parambath wikipedia page doesn't contains alma mater information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 26 May 2019 07:24 (UTC)

Hello, if you have information in this respect, please feel free to add it to the page but please provide a reliable source. Thank you. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) Eagleash (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Note The infobox previously contained the information, but it was disrupted by a misplaced, unsupported and malformatted parameter. Fixed. Eagleash (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


I've tried several times to the page, "Treasure In search of the Golden Horse" each time my is deleted. After spending 60 hours on this task, I must be doing something wrong. There is a new book explaining the true solution to this puzzle, which the world should know about. Is there someone (an or) that can the page for me? Thanks, Momazogie @ Momazogie (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Momazogie: The only saved s at Special:Contributions/Momazogie and the page history [2] are [3] from 16 April where you added a line to the See also section. The section is only for links to other Wikipedia articles and your addition was reverted. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Replacing an article with another one[]

I'm not sure if I've done this correctly - there was a page called "Lucy Gray" which was about a poem of that name. However I wanted to write an article about a person with the same name, so I've renamed that page to "Lucy Gray (poem)" and written a page about LG on a page "Lucy Gray". Could someone please check that this all as it should be? Do we also need a disambiguation page now for the poem, the person, and there's an album as well? TIA! MurielMary (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's been changed for you. I don't think the WP:BLP is the primary topic, so it's been moved to Lucy Gray (activist) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm also not 100% sure they are notable enough for a page, but that's just a feeling. Could be wrong. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@MurielMary: People don't automatically take precedence over other topics. The poem still looks like the primary topic so I have moved Lucy Gray (poem) back to Lucy Gray and moved the person to Lucy Gray (activist). In either case, the page at Lucy Gray should provide a way to navigate to the other articles. I have added the activist to the hatnote. If Lucy Gray (poem) had still be an article then the hatnote should have been removed since "(poem)" makes the subject unambiguous. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks for that PrimeHunter, much appreciated. MurielMary (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

On This Day … []

I make a lot of use of the Wiki pages that detail events on each day in history.

The ones like this:

Each page is reasonably extensive: and includes links to the equivalent pages on the BBC‘s site: and that New York Times do, and the relevant page on the Canada Channel’s ‘Today In Canada’s History’ pages.

I have to ask: is there an equivalent for Australia, and New Zealand?

I believe it would be useful to each page

I know I’d find it handy: it would boost the range … — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuddy2977 (talkcontribs) 26 May 2019 11:46 (UTC)

Cuddy2977 So you want to add entries to the "External links" section in each of the date articles? Probably the place to discuss this is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year. If you don't already have a proposal for particular useful links, perhaps first consult the WikiProjects for those countries: Bhunacat10 (talk), 10:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
A couple per day, : Bhunacat10, yes. I’ll ropiest to the page you suggested: but wouldn’t know what would be good sites to suggest, I’m in the UK … 

Cuddy2977 (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Foreign words in article[]

Hi! Recently, I created this template, and I want to begin filling the red links from the muktamar. I have several problems with this, is the term muktamar compatible in Wikipedia? Muktamar itself is an Indonesicized Arabic word that has been used frequently by Islamic organization. The words' literal meaning is congress (for political party context).

Can someone help me solving this? What title should I use, with muktamar or congress?--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No definition of the word "muktamar" appears in any dictionary that I can find, so it would not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article (though "Muktarmar" appears in Wikipedia as a name). The usual convention is WP:COMMONNAME. Dbfirs 15:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Merritt Island High School[]

Hi guys not sure if this is a qualifier but under notable alumni for Merritt Island high school Jeff Wickersham was a 3 year starter for the LSU football team and was drafted by the Miami Dolphins thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jffcpr295 (talkcontribs) 18:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The qualifier is simple: If the subject is notable (see WP:N) then the subject can and should have a Wikipedia article. If the subject does not have a Wikipedia article, then don't put him in the list. -Arch dude (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
"He was drafted by the Miami Dolphins"- did he play an NFL game for them? If so, he's probably notable enough for an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair use vs. Public domain[]

Hi all! I am working along with other Wikipedians on recently approved DYK article George Beauchamp (RMS Titanic). There's already a free picture of him at 24 in 1912. I found this picture where he's pictured in 1965 shortly before his death. The copyright holder is unclear. Can it be used as fair use? or already having a public domain picture is enough? Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Yes, I know that, but it was 1912. So, you mean we could use fair use for the 1965 pic? Thanks again. --LLcentury (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Yeah, if anything the 1965 pic is worse than the 1912 one, and of course it was the 1910s when he became notable, so that picture is more relevant anyway. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
LLcentury, I don't believe you can claim fair use here for a portrait of a non-living person if there's already a free image available – see criterion 1 of our non-free content policy. Your article has other problems: I moved it to draft space because I thought it needed a good deal of work before it could survive in mainspace. Specifically, the sources are mostly very poor – Google is a just search engine, so its results are not reliable; the Sun is a tabloid rag; the encyclopedia-titanica is user-submitted content, so not reliable by our standards. Then I realised that most of the content had anyway been copied from that source, so I'm afraid I've blanked the page. I'll post on your talk-page in a moment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
... and ping LLcentury after fail. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I've done my best to re-write the article. Hope I contributed. --LLcentury (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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


Need help to do an article about this small online store ( selling new and used merchandise that accepts bitcoin and Litecoin for payments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampuzo (talkcontribs) 13:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@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)