Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 September 19#Editing Oklahoma Aquarium

I thought the usually seen categories were ordered so that External links were before References. I think there's more people that will ignore the category References than External links. If the former is the case, shouldn't the order go accordingly ?

The previous paragraph is what I really need but is there some guideline about categories for a basic page? By bacis, I mean not an image gallery, category listing, or the like.

Thanks DynV (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

: The order is given at WP:Section order. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sri Late Duddilla Sripada rao former speaker of AP assemly is not figured in political elites in Telangana also — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.40.15 (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:If this person meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability (and as a former speaker of a legislature, they probably are), and if you have a reliable source for their position, you are very welcome to edit the article and add them; or else put the request on the talk page of the article. This is the encyclopaedia which anybody may edit. --ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

{{Archive top|Asked and answered at the Tea House.--ukexpat (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)}}

Hey guys! I have helped to write an article about Australian explorers Cas and Jonesy, but am having some issues that I would appreciate help resolving. The page is Cas and Jonesy.

If anyone can help me it would be much appreciated.

Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandersawyer (talk • contribs) 06:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

: I see that you've asked the same question in at least 2 other places, and had an answer in at least one of those. In future, please don't do this, as it is a waste of volunteers' time to try to answer a question which has already been answered. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

Hi there,

I am a fairly experienced editor and have been subbing a draft article at User:TheChampionMan1234/Flag_of_Donetsk, with his consent. We are both stalwards at WP:RFD. We want to move this over the redirect at Flag of Donetsk and have marked the R as speedy to do so, so we are just waiting for that. (They're not very speedy today)

Now, I want to put in an Interwiki link. I am used to doing this the old-fashioned way but not the new-fashioned way. So two questions:

• Can you give me a link to how I do the Interwiki links the new-fangled way?
• Even with that, do you think it wise I do so while it is a draft in user namespace? Would that confuse things once it is (presumably) uncontroverisally moved over the redirect? Would it be better to wait until it is over in article space?

Thanks a lot. Si Trew (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:I've done the move for you... When you say "interwiki links", do you mean links in the Languages section on the left? You can add these by clicking on the little cogwheel next to that menu item. If you're talking about in-text interwiki links, then WP:INTER has the details. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks for the move, I just noticed it when pinging the other contributor. Yeah the language section. I used to do it all longhand, thanks for the link. The new way makes our life for us bunnies at WP:RFD a bit painful, since the IW links are not in the plaintext.

::Sorry for the ramble, bad habit of mine. I'll check that when I get back to the warren. Obviously you can close this as successful (if you do that kinda thing, I don't come here often.) The second point is moot in this case, but I still wonder whether it would be wise to do an Interwiki link in a draft you expect to be moved. Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

: {{ec}} I went to the equivalent page in the Ukrainian wikipedia, & from there to the [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2165848#sitelinks-wikipedia appropriate Wikidata page], which I have updated. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks for that. I thought it had magically happened (and wondered how) – as I say, with Wikidata which is on the whole a much easier system for all kinds of reasons, one downside is one gets no record in either the article or its history that such a thing has been done. I don't know if the {{ec}} was with me, but I added to the English target after finding some more information (not much) in Dutch WP. Si Trew (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I want to add the biography of an artist who I know in real life. Wikipedia says: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." But there is nothing about him published anywhere. I get all information from himself. Can I add that article in wikipedia?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nareh (talk • contribs) 11:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:If nothing has been published about this artist they are very unlikely to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and also all biographies of living people must be properly sourced.TheLongTone (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

::{{e/c}} I am afraid to say, in a word, no. If there is "nothing about him published anywhere" then he clearly does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for creating an article.
As with any article, to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people), there must significant coverage (not just a passing mention, or inclusion in a list, but whole articles, or a substantial section of them, or a chapter in a book, devoted to the person) in reliable sources (not Facebook, Linked-In, Twitter, blogs, self-published or user-editable source like Wikipedia) that are independent of the subject (not them, their company, university, PR company, relative etc.).
Until such information is published, it is Too soon to have an article about him and the article will have to wait until he is more notable. Futhermore, even when he meets those criteria, information obtained directly from the subject is not acceptable, as it is not verifiable. - Arjayay (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

How can i verify? or submit source about the person

Zulqarnain Zaidi

http://www.express.pk/author/932/zulqarnain-zaidi/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalists pakistan (talk • contribs) 12:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

: {{re|Journalists pakistan}} I am not sure what your question is. If you wish to create an article about this person, you might start with Wikipedia:Article_creation. Keep in mind that persons must meet notability requirements to have a page on Wikipedia. See WP:GNG for details. Kingsindian (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

Can anyone explain to me why, in opening a page to edit it, now and then (as now), I occasionally find that the toolbar and markup options below the window are no longer visible, meaning I cannot edit anything except the simplest text, because there is no means to add markup devices to assist me?

Thank you Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

: {{re|Nishidani}} On your preferences [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing here], do you have "Show edit toolbar (requires Javascript)" checked? Kingsindian (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

::Yes. That's ticked. I tried to edit my sandbox now, and even that has disappeared from view! Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:::Don't waste time on this KI. My default method in the past always worked, i.e. just use the computer to read, and wait a few days until some automatic update mysteriously fixes the glitch, which I note every other ten hours or so as I control the edit window on wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Chamila Asanka is First transgender woman who involve with international contest & represent sri lanka at Miss International Queen 2010 & 2011.in first time.

also she is frist transgender model in Sri Lanka.she is in to the list of most beautiful transgender model in the world.

This Ironic woman kept her name in sri lanka history as well world history as first sri Lankan transgender to who has a gut to show her courage to the world.

you can Google her name by chamila Asanka as well as chami asanka.

she is the ironic idol in country like Sri Lanka to show off her personality.

Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uchitha lakmal (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:Please make your request at: WP:Requested articles.--ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Using the mobile version of Wikipedia's website, how do I access the Talk page of an article? I don't see a link anywhere. Thank you! Grover cleveland (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Grover cleveland}} I don't know the answer, but there's a long thread about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 130#Mobile talk which may help you. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

::I enabled beta mode as suggested by your link, and I now have access to the Talk pages in mobile. Thank you! Grover cleveland (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Grover cleveland}} I don't know the answer either, and I have zero experience accessing the web from a mobile. But, if you have a URL/location field that you can modify without retyping the whole thing, you could do the following as a last resort: (1) access the article page, (2) insert talk: immediately before the article title in the URL. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there some quick way of adding all the pages [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ARBPIA&limit=5000 here] to a public watchlist? It is not a category, but a template, so I think related changes will not work. Kingsindian (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:Related changes can do this: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?namespace=&tagfilter=&target=Template%3AARBPIA&showlinkedto=1&title=Special%3ARecentChangesLinked try this link]. But if you'd like the results from "what links here" reformatted as a list of wikilinks, I can do that for you with AWB. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:: That would be nice. However, there is a slight issue. The templates are placed on the talk page, while I am also interested in the article page. Perhaps in some way the {{tl|la2}} template can be used to cover both? Kingsindian (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Kingsindian}} I've created User:Kingsindian/ARBPIA articles with 1028 {{tl|la2}} templates on it. Any use? If not, feel free to slap a {{tl|db-user}} on it. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:::: Perfect! Thanks. Kingsindian (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

::::: {{re|John of Reading}} I have now got permissions to use AWB myself. I am not yet familiar with its capabilities, but if you could give a short explanation of what exactly you did to create the page, it would be helpful. "Teach a man to fish" and all that stuff. Kingsindian (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::{{replyto|Kingsindian}} I'll post at User talk:Kingsindian/ARBPIA articles with instructions, probably later today. I'll mention here that AWB allows anyone to use its "Make list" function; you don't need to apply for AWB permission or even tell AWB your user name. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, I think the search field should be larger or more prominent. I believe most people come to Wikipedia to search for something, NOT to read the news, which is what the Main page now looks like. When one lands on the Wikipedia site, their cursor should be in the search field so that they're ready to type their search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilliams2537 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Bwilliams2537}} Thanks for raising these points.

:The second point, the cursor placement, has been discussed many times. You can read about it at Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google? - there are several workarounds listed there, an easy one for readers such as yourself who have registered an account, and other suggestions that anyone can use.

:I'm not sure where the first point, the width of the search box, has been discussed. For readers with a registered account there is a workaround for this as well: go to the "Gadgets" tag of your preferences, tick the option labelled "Widen the search box in the Vector skin", and then scroll down to click the "Save" button. You should find that the search box is now wider. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

::John, the OP clearly seeks a benefit to all readers, not just her/himself. Except for "I think" and "I believe", s/he uses the third person throughout. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Mandruss}} Yes, that's why I tried to point Bwilliams2537 to places where the issues had been discussed. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey all, anybody know if there's a simple shortcut template that lets you point to a user's contribution page similar to the way we can use {{u|Yournamehere}} or {{noping|Yournamehere}} to point to a user page? This comes up a lot in anti-vandal work and I don't have the energy to keep typing Special:Contributions/Yournamehere if there's something shorter like {{sc|Yournamehere}}. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:See {{tl|Userspace linking templates}} for various options. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

::Danke. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I recently attempted to update the information on the Oklahoma Aquarium's wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_Aquarium. Unfortunately, I made mistakes while editing because two warning signs now appear at the top and I obviously do not want those to appear on the page! The edits I made were all in September 2014. Could you please remove these edits, so that the page will read like it did before September 2014? I saw that there was an "undo" button in the "view history" page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oklahoma_Aquarium&action=history), but I am concerned to click them, so I don't further more disrupt the page. If I can click the 4 undo buttons to remove by changes and make it back to its previous state before my changes, I will. The page was last corrected on July 13, 2012 and it was correct with no warning signs then. If my corrections can be undone to where it reads the same as it did on July 13, 2012, that would be great! I thought I made the corrections following the guidelines on my last edit, but it did not seem to suffice. I will do my research and go over all Wikipedia guidelines before I edit next. Meanwhile, if my edits could be removed and the article could be changed to how it was before September 2014, I would very much appreciate it.

Thank you!

AquariumOK (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:The "warning signs" (we refer to them as templates) were applied by another editor, {{user|Mean as custard}}, as you can see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oklahoma_Aquarium&diff=624927749&oldid=624686804 here]. It appears to me that the templates warning that the article reads like an advertisement and doesn't establish how the aquarium is notable are presently valid concerns; the templates should not be removed until those items are addressed. Adding information establishing attention the aquarium has gained with third-party reliable sources would go a long way towards addressing both concerns. Reverting the article to an earlier state would not, to my mind, improve matters. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a particular IP which has been changing articles based on its personal preferences, and every time I try to bring up a discussion to communicate with this IP, it will never respond, and in fact, this IP has not ever used a talk page, choosing to only communicate through edit summaries (or not use an edit summary at all with multiple reverts which I know are reverts because they ping me with the red notice at the top of the screen). It makes an edit that goes against a guideline, so I ask why it did that (attempting to communicate with the user via talk pages), and it never responds. Even when I left a message directly on this IP's user talk page, it still will never respond. Then, I eventually just revert the IP's edit, and it reverts my revert. Because I was the first one to revert, we end up going until we both have three reverts, but I won't revert again because I will not break the three-revert rule, and since the IP was the second to revert, it's edits stand. No matter what I try, I cannot fix the pages to follow guidelines, for on these two pages, the IP will just revert me (there is a third page where the issue is not that it goes against guidelines, just that the IP will not discuss). There are not many people involved on the pages, being mostly just me and the IP, and because of that, I cannot do anything about the IP's editing, and I won't report the IP because the edits, while they are pref-pushing, are in good faith, I think. I don't know why the IP refuses to ever use talk pages, but because of this, I don't really know what I can do about this. This combination of my attempts at discussion being futile and my corrections being reverted is frustrating, and while the issues have been minor, I have had enough of this. The IP was previously blocked for a similar issue, but that was because it was this IP versus an administrator. While these are relatively minor issues, if no action is taken, the IP will just keep on acting as though it owns these articles. This IP has also helped out in some ways, but I don't know how to change this editor's behavior. I myself may have been a bit hasty on some of my own reverts, but I have opted not to start an edit war by breaking the 3RR, and my question is, what should be done in situations like these? (If you reply, so I will see your response sooner, please use {{tlx|reply to}}) Dustin (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:Have you tried the dispute resolution noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

::Unfortunately, in looking further at the edits by the unregistered editor, I would suggest that the edit warring noticeboard may be a better option. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:::I have to leave for just a brief period of time, so I can't say much now, but I can virtually guarantee that 176.199.121.45 and 178.202.135.29 are the same individual (very similar IPs, editing patterns, etc.); just compare these two: [http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/178.202.135.29] [http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/176.199.121.45]. Dustin (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

::::I was hoping that someone else might respond, but as it seems that no one will, I may soon take your advice. Dustin (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::What other response did you want? -:)

::::::{{ping|Robert McClenon}} It's not about you in particular; I just mean that it is usually good to have multiple ideas. In any case, I am going to report this person as one of its IPs (178.202.135.29) has reverted me again. Dustin (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Edit-warring doesn't have to be 3RR, and is better dealt with at WP:ANEW than at WP:AIN. Another possibility would be to request semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::Since I don't think there are any 3RR violations though, I think I may create a report at the incidents page instead. (Except for vandalism,) I usually don't mess with that sort of stuff though, so if that's not the right place, please say so. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::{{question}} is there a policy requiring any user to respond to anything ? Mlpearc (open channel) 20:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::There's WP:CONSENSUS. And WP:BRD, which enjoys mere essay status but is very widely accepted. You might not be able to find the words "the editor must respond" anywhere, as that would be a bit too strident for Wikipedia's style, but I think there's extremely wide agreement that an editor who won't discuss anything is not interested in the principles on which Wikipedia depends to operate effectively, and thus to survive. A habitual non-responder is the ultimate POV-pusher, and an ongoing pattern of contentious non-response certainly warrants attention at a higher level. One man's opinion. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::The policy that is being violated is not any policy requiring a response, but the policy against edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::Could be, but then the parties in an edit war are generally equally guilty, since the only measure is the number and frequency of reverts. In many cases, including, as I see it, this one, one of the two parties shows a respect for long-established process, and the other one doesn't. That's an important distinction, imo; if policy doesn't allow us to make it, it should be modified to do so. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::I don't think it is necessary to change the policy. Admins do take into account whether one of the parties is showing respect for process and one of them is not. Since Dustin is being careful not to violate 3RR, that gives the unregistered editor something of an advantage, and reasonable administrators do take that into account. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

:I assume we're talking about the 2014 Pacific hurricane season and related pages? I notice that the changes made by the IP are mostly to unreferenced statistics in infoboxes. Without references, it's quite easy to imagine that two good faith editors may be inserting data from contradictory sources. Since the editor won't engage in a discussion, and since unreferenced material is contrary to policy, I suggest that you add references for the statistics which you believe are correct. This will improve the encyclopedia and place you on higher ground if a dispute does emerge, and could dissuade the IP from making unexplained changes. Pburka (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

::Actually, Pburka, the issue is the IP reverting me, purposefully blanking the "undid revision by" part of its edit summary, violating Wikipedia guidelines (there are some reasons where it makes sense to do this, but the IP just says either the same thing or nothing at all, and only through edit summaries), and just being disruptive with anything involving redirects. Dustin (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

::Mlpearc, this person with the two IPs has been constantly reverting my attempts at correcting the articles to meet Wikipedia guidelines, and it was even blocked for a very similar reason. Back in July, after this edit with the summary "The redirect is so illogical", that IP was blocked for repeated WP:INTDABLINK violations and for being disruptive. Now, that same IP has made very similar edits (always has to use direct links) with this edit, and it's edit summary was "These redirects are so illogical" (an completely untrue statement, as I tried to explain multiple times). Dustin (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

::Also, just to make this a bit clearer, the primary articles being affected are Timeline of the 2014 Atlantic hurricane season and Timeline of the 2014 Pacific hurricane season. Dustin (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

:::All the comments after my question I totally agree with and is also my understanding and beliefs, I guess I just wanted to point out, after Dustin's initial comment, which seemed heavy on "not responding", that in fact, it's not required. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

<<>>

Thank you,

Wayne Arnold

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7767:6C20:6921:85AF:C34C:C3F5 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 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. ~~

Also, Wikipedia does not give legal advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

:I have removed the various names, policy numbers and your street address to protect your privacy. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)