Jump to content

User talk:Asilvering/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Question from AlexandraMt (08:09, 9 April 2024)

Hello Asilvering‬! I'm Alexandra, PR manager at architectural company REM PRO. I'd like to create a Wikipedia page for our company, but I know it may not be easy.

I am aware that my direct association with REM PRO presents a conflict of interest. My intention is to present verifiable facts about REM PRO, emphasizing its contributions without infringing on Wikipedia's policies. Let me share with you a glimpse of the work that underscores our commitment to preserving and enhancing cultural heritage, which we believe adds to the societal value of our operations.

REM PRO's role in the architectural and engineering domain has been marked by its involvement in pivotal Latvian national projects. A notable example is our work on the Daugavpils Fortress. This fortress stands out as a rare 19th-century bastion-type defensive structure that has been preserved in its entirety. Our team undertook extensive research in archives to uncover and restore elements of the fortress that were altered or destroyed during the Soviet era, ensuring the use of original materials to preserve its authentic historical and cultural essence. I've already added a photo of the fortress to its Wikipedia page after the last restoration, you can read more about it there.

I understand the importance of neutrality and the stringent guidelines Wikipedia maintains to ensure content integrity. Therefore, I seek your advice on how best to approach this endeavor. Would you be willing to evaluate the suitability of REM PRO for a Wikipedia article? Furthermore, if you have any suggestions or could offer your mentorship in navigating the article creation process while adhering to Wikipedia's standards, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for considering my request and all thee warm regards :) --AlexandraMt (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AlexandraMt, thanks for releasing your photo of the fortress to wikipedia! You'll first want to read WP:COI. You should also read WP:BOSS, which does tell you not to create an article. Assuming you are undeterred, the relevant notability guideline for companies and organizations is WP:NCORP. Unfortunately for PR people everywhere, this is wikipedia's most strict notability guideline. I've struggled, myself, to find sources even for companies that are so well-known they seem "obviously" notable. What we're looking for is sources that independently discuss the company in depth and at length. That means that basically everything that came from your office - press releases, blurbs, etc - don't count. I did a quick google search and was not filled with optimism - but I do see some Latvian-language news results, which might help. It may be that you can't scrape together the right kind of sources to write about the company for its own article, but that you could add some information about, for example, the restoration of Daugavpils Fortress, to the relevant articles that already exist. If you do this, you'll need to use Template:Edit COI to place an edit request, rather than editing the articles directly. Otherwise, you might find your edits reverted, even if they were basically fine. Make sure to avoid words like "pivotal", "notable", "extensive", etc, to describe your company's work, or editors monitoring the edit requests might see your edits as promotional.
If English Wikipedia's notability criteria are too strict, you might try Latvian Wikipedia. The core "notability" guidelines are the same, but they don't have a specific, stricter guideline for corporations. Russian Wikipedia doesn't either (they had a separate guideline once, and abandoned it), and in general my experience as a reader (not editor) of ru-wiki is that they are not particularly strict about sources. But I'm not sure if there are optics problems involved in a Lithuanian company in cultural heritage having an ru-wiki article but not an lt-wiki or en-wiki one, so perhaps that's not a great suggestion. -- asilvering (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Asilvering, you're a marvel! The fact that you work on the Wikipedia community for free is truly valuable!
Thank you for the recommendations. I have a few more questions:
  1. Will having an article in Latvian serve as significant grounds for permission to publish an article in english?
  2. Will a section on restoration in fortress page (in eng) be significant grounds for permission to publish an article in english? What if it's a combination of points 1 and 2?
  3. Do you know if the rules in the arabic-language Wikipedia are strict for publishing a company page?
AlexandraMt (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  1. No. The only way to have an article on a corporation/organization is for it to meet the WP:NCORP notability guidelines.
  2. Also no, same reason.
  3. No idea, sorry.
asilvering (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Got it! Thank you so much, you really helped me structure my understanding of what to do with the corporate page on Wikipedia. AlexandraMt (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Pouget review

Just wanted to say thanks so much for the review and helping me get the article up to GA status! And also thank you so so much for suggesting I nominate it in the first place!

Sidenote, just for the sake of completion, I checked about the Ricard that Langlais mentions. Martin's Maitron article mentions a J. Ricard as part of the editorial committee of Ça ira. Then I found this article, and apparently the man's name was Jean-Baptiste Ricard and he was a prominent anarchist from Saint-Étienne during that time. However, his Maitron article basically says he was inactive after the Trial of the Thirty and it's unknown when he died even, additionally it doesn't even mention Ça ira. So with Martin already having a solid article on the French wiki and being a lot more prominent and researched, I was just logging on to type out a comment arguing we should keep him as a red link and including Ricard would probably lead to his link remaining red for a while. Aleksamil (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from Berryforperpetuity (08:49, 13 April 2024)

Where do people find articles that need improving? I cant find any, other than the suggested edits on my homepage. --Berry (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Berryforperpetuity, welcome to Wikipedia! There are lots of different ways to find articles that need improving. When I started, I went looking for maintenance categories that had backlogs and seemed easy to deal with. I recommend Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup as a satisfying task that anyone can do, even if they're super new to editing. Wikipedia:Task Center has more. You can also join a wikiproject and start going through their maintenance backlogs. This is how I find most of my maintenance tasks these days. Judging from your userpage, you might be interested in WP:LAW, WP:DEATH, and WP:DENMARK. You can find a master list of all of the wikiproject's tagged articles through this cleanup listings page. For example, here is Denmark's. Wikiprojects also have various editathons and so on, if you'd like to write some articles yourself.
If you can read Danish and are interested in translating or helping smooth out translations, there's also Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation from Danish. This looks like a great backlog to "adopt" - nice and small and satisfying to clear out. If you know any languages other than English, those skills are always in demand across wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Supermarine Spiteful

Due to the excellent work of Amitchell125, I have completed the review of Supermarine Spiteful and have promoted it to be a Good Article. Thank you for your patience. simongraham (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the sanity check that there is not a rule against new users taking on GA review. I was worried I had missed something or that there was an unwritten rule I was unaware of so seeing it in writing was super helpful :) SyntaxZombie (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out! By the way, there's a user script that helps do all the review-closing steps at the end: User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool. Saves time and helps you avoid typos. -- asilvering (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Growth News, April 2024

18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from Jamescarter01 on Matthew Tukaki (02:59, 26 April 2024)

How to add picture --Jamescarter01 (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jamescarter01, see WP:UPIMAGE. -- asilvering (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hello! Thanks for your answers to my other questions, I've since started to edit a bunch and plan on committing to editing for the foreseeable future. I had some other questions though.
When going on the edit history page of an article, it's not uncommon for me to see one editor making a string of edits consecutively (for example, one editor making 10-15 edits back-to-back.) Is this common practice when editing, or just something a few editors do? Is it just to increase someone's edit count?
Also, in the future, I would like to start doing good article reviews. Other than the time commitment, are there requirements to start doing them? Thanks again for the help. Berry (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@BerryForPerpetuity, making a lot of little edits in a row is pretty common, especially for people who are editing on mobile. In some cases, people will do this so that if any particular edit is contentious, someone can revert just that edit more easily, leaving the others. Multiple edits also gives you multiple opportunities for edit summaries, so when I'm editing a draft created by a new editor, I'll often make multiple edits so that I can explain each one. But there are dodgy reasons to do this, too. As you've observed, it can be a way to artificially inflate edit count - this isn't a huge concern, since there are lots of kinds of perfectly legitimate edits that drive up edit count. More concerning is when people make multiple edits in a row to bury a contentious edit in the middle. Someone just looking at the most recent edits, or just looking at their watchlist, won't notice. If you think you see that happening, that's worth investigating further.
For GA reviews, there aren't any requirements - you just need to be able to read closely, communicate clearly, and follow the GA reviewer instructions. It's helpful if you have access to a good library, so you can spot-check sources without needing the nominator to email them to you. You might find that some people are skeptical of your ability to do this. Here is a recent example. You'll note that the cantankerous voices are the minority; if you run into any trouble, you can always go to the GAN talk page for help. -- asilvering (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2024

Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Use open-access references wherever possible, but a paywalled reliable source
    is better than none, particularly for biographies of living people.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from AnuSushumna (00:31, 6 May 2024)

I suggested edits on logo for ANU, as I work there in Digital Team, Australia. I also had been notified of the changes the same day. Not sure, I am not able to see any changes nor past notifications. --AnuSushumna (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@AnuSushumna, it looks to me like this post on my talk page is the first edit you have ever made to wikipedia. Are you sure you used this account to suggest the edits? Were you perhaps logged in to a different one earlier? -- asilvering (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@ AnuSushumna (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
You have to click the blue "publish" button to publish your edits. -- asilvering (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Wezza1610 on Wikipedia:Contents/People and self (02:13, 6 May 2024)

hello can i search my family name and ancestors? --Wezza1610 (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wezza1610, it sounds like you might be looking for ancestry.com? -- asilvering (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Add a link at English Wikipedia

Hello Asilvering

As you participated in a previous discussion regarding Growth Add a link feature, I'm sharing with you the recent post we wrote about it.

In short, this feature allows newcomers to discover that they can edit Wikipedia, by adding missing suggested links to existing articles in a guided way. It is also an excellent way to get more easy tasks newcomers can work on, as only a handful of easy tasks are available for them at the moment.

Let me know if you have any question or thoughts about this feature.

Best, Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Reviewer Barnstar
Thank you for participating in the March 2024 GA backlog drive. Your noteworthy contribution (12.5 points total) helped reduce the backlog by more than 250 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Proxy editing

I'm disappointed to see your further edits to Killone Abbey. You are supposed to mentoring Kellycrak88? This appears to be a WP:SPA with an obvious WP:COI, which they at first denied and have only admitted to in the last couple of days. They have engaged in numerous personal attacks against me, including on this page. You've mentioned nothing about that to them. They've repeatedly removed referenced content, and been warned about it by others, not just me (and then they've blanked the warning.) This includes removing content referenced to Irish government agencies - absolutely reliable sources - while they've tried on the talk page to argue that their own screenshots are RS, and that I should engage in WP:OR. They've been busy canvassing admins: here, here, and and here. As one would expect, they've either not been responded to, or have been told it's not the role of an admin to intervene in a content dispute! Nor is it a mentor's role! You seem to be the only person they've convinced to help, but rather than pointing them to any of the dispute resolution processes, or pointed them at policies such as WP:NPA, WP:NOR and WP:RS, you've essentially proxied for them, after being canvassed. That's disappointing to see in someone who should be mentoring them in best practice.

As to your edits - you have also removed referenced content, cited to Tailte Éireann and Clare County Council. The fact of the matter is that there is a right-of-way to Killone Abbey - Kellycrak asserts it's a "private right of way" but that is not stated anywhere; their own additions to the page state a public mass is celebrated there annually, and the Clare County Council report they introduced to the debate contains assertions that there is another public right-of-way to the Abbey. So while I am not disputing (and never did dispute) that the Abbey is on private land, the question of access is not as black-and-white as Kellycrak asserts, or as clear cut as you would appear to believe. Will including all of the material confuse readers? Potentially (but unlikely). Do they deserve to have all the information to hand, nonetheless? Yes. Please consider self-reverting. And don't let yourself be canvassed by this mentee, or others; that's not a mentor's role. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Bastun, I have seen all of the things you mention here, and I am not engaged in proxy editing. What I did before making any edits at all was to start from the question at hand: is there a public right-of-way to the abbey? I went looking for myself, before I made any edits to the article or talk page, and found that there are no obvious mentions whatsoever about a public right-of-way to the abbey, affirmative or otherwise. This formed my context for the issue. Only after that did I read the full article and talk page history and engage with the discussion and the sources brought up there. In this way I was acting as a disinterested third party. Frankly, I was expecting that my mentee was wrong, and that I was going to have to explain why they were wrong, or at least why their evidence was not acceptable for wikipedia and how they might go about finding better evidence.
What I found instead is that my mentee is correct, and that (possibly primed by the previous article talk page comment about bad-faith actors, which is perfectly understandable) you have misinterpreted some of the documents in question, possibly because you think "public access" and "public right-of-way" are the same thing. For example, you say a public mass is celebrated there annually, as though this is evidence for a public right of way, but this has no relevance to the issue at hand. The fact that people can go to the abbey, especially on a particular designated day, is not the same as there being a public right-of-way. You can learn some of this from our own article on Right of way, which includes among other information, Some landowners allow access over their land without dedicating a right of way. That is what has happened in this case. Not only does it appear to be incorrect to say that there is a public right of way there from the information we have, it is dangerous to insist that there is a public right of way there, since we would be implicitly condoning illegal behaviour, namely trespassing. We absolutely cannot misinform readers in ways that may cause them to inadvertently break the law.
If we cannot agree on what the sources we have say, and no one is able to turn up any others, one way to end this content dispute would be to remove all mention of access from the article. I would have happily suggested that on the talk page as the next stage in the dispute, if you again took issue with my edits. In my view, this is preferable to giving confusing and apparently contradictory information, and additionally -- and critically -- does not run the risk of suggesting something to a reader that may cause them to have an unfortunate encounter with police. Generally, I would say that it is better to uninform a reader than to misinform them. In this case, the stakes of making a mistake are not terribly high (since this is England, I am not expecting that the landowner will shoot trespassers), but the stakes of saying nothing are very low (a local will probably already know whether they have public right of way or not, and a tourist will simply ask the local tourist board or their innkeeper). Better, I think, to say nothing.
In all of these things I have simply been acting as an experienced editor who has been asked for help, much as I would if Kellycrak88 had asked at the teahouse, at a relevant wikiproject, or at 3O (though I would not make edits myself as a 3O). I have assessed the sources and made edits, as a regular editor. If you want me to put my mentorship hat on, I will say this: I agree that Kellycrak88's initial sources were poor, and that their conduct has been unnecessarily adversarial. However, it was not adversarial from the very beginning. Your first edit to the article after Kellycrak88 made their initial edits had the edit summary Restore referenced content. Do not remove this again. I find this unacceptably rude for dealing with new editors, especially when it is your very first reversion of their content and there is no ongoing edit war (yet). I think it is extremely understandable that, after having been treated in this way, Kellycrak88 became frustrated and combative, and ultimately reached out for help. When they did so, they clearly explained their "COI", such as it is; I think it is outrageous to say someone has a COI simply because they live nearby, but that's neither here nor there. You had many opportunities to de-escalate this, taking into consideration that new editors do not know wikipedian norms, but you did not do so, and that is unfortunate. It is especially unfortunate to see both of you arguing further up on my talk page, but I see there that Kellycrak88 has apologized for their offense, and I hope you will accept that apology. Your assertion, I am a neutral editor., I found genuinely shocking. You are not neutral; you are one of the two parties in the initial content dispute, and have never been neutral in it.
Furthermore, you say that I mentioned nothing about that to them, regarding what you see as personal attacks. I addressed that directly, in a full paragraph that begins What I hope you will learn from this. You've said you are losing patience, so I don't think you should be interacting with this newbie anymore; patience is required when dealing with newcomers. I think it would be best for you and Kellycrak88 to cease communication with each other for now, including avoiding talk page templates. If you want to continue trying to work through this content dispute, I am happy to work with you on that in these circumstances, just say so. If the two of you agree to voluntarily cease communication with each other, I would also ask that Kellycrak88 avoid making edits regarding access to Killone Abbey anywhere on the encyclopedia until the content dispute is sorted out. -- asilvering (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
England? England?! Seriously?! FFS. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I hope you can forgive me for making one mistake in five paragraphs of text. -- asilvering (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)