User talk:Asilvering/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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

The Growth team will now send quarterly reports to keep you in the loop. Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work.

If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.

Community Configuration

Growth features are currently configurable at Special:EditGrowthConfig. This quarter we are working on making Community Configuration accessible for other MediaWiki developers while also moving Growth feature configuration to the new CommunityConfiguration extension.

An early version of Community Configuration can be tested at Spanish Beta Wikipedia. We plan to release the new Community Configuration extension to pilot wikis (Arabic and Spanish Wikipedia) in early May, 2024. The first non-Growth team feature to utilize Community Configuration will be Automoderator.

In parallel with the development, the Growth team will propose Community Configuration usage guidelines, Community Configuration design guidelines, and provide technical documentation.

Experiment Results

Add a Image experiment analysis results

The Growth team conducted an experiment to assess the impact of the “Add an Image” structured task on the Newcomer Homepage's "Suggested Edits" module. This analysis finds that the Add an Image structured task leads to an increase in newcomer participation on the mobile web platform, particularly by making constructive (non-reverted) article edits:

• The likelihood that mobile web newcomers make their first article edit (+17.0% over baseline)
• The likelihood that they are retained as newcomers (+24.3% over baseline)
• The number of edits they make during their first two weeks on the wiki (+21.8% over baseline)
• A lower probability of the newcomers' edits will be reverted (-3.3% over baseline).

Personalized praise experiment results

This feature was developed for Mentors as part of the Growth team's Positive Reinforcement project. When A/B testing on Spanish Wikipedia, we found no significant impact on retention, but we found a significant positive impact on newcomer productivity. However, we concluded that the results weren’t positive enough to justify the time investment from Mentors. We plan to discuss this feature with our pilot wikis, and consider further improvements before scaling this feature further. Meanwhile, communities willing to test the feature can ask to have it deployed. (T361763)

English donors encouraged to try editing

As in previous years, donors were directed to a Thank you page after donation (example). However, this year we tested a new “Try editing Wikipedia,” call to action on the Thank You page. This call to action linked to a unique account creation page. From this account creation page we were able to track Registrations and Activation (editing for the first time). During the English banner campaign, the Donor Thank you page led to 4,398 new accounts, and 441 of those accounts went on to constructively edit within 24 hours. (T352900)

Future work

Annual Plan

The Growth team and the Editing team will work on the WE1.2 Key Result in the coming fiscal year. We will start initial discussions with communities soon to help finalize our plans. (T361657)

Newcomer Homepage Community Updates module

We plan to A/B test adding a new Community Configurable module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We are early in the planning phase of this project that will take place first at our pilot wikis and wikis volunteering. We welcome community feedback on initial designs and plans, in any language at our project talk page.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

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: New: Press women | Alphabet run U, V & W | Central and Eastern Europe Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Wikimedia CEE Spring 2024 - contest with certificates of participation and prizes The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th 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: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: 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:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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)

Question from Mohit atulkar on Timeline of Indian history (14:21, 4 May 2024)

Hello, I want to write something on Wikipedia but I am facing difficulty in adding a row to write here. --Mohit atulkar (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mohit atulkar Oh dear. I thought your question was a simple one about editing in general, but this article in particular is really strangely formatted! I'm going to see if I can't get an experienced editor interested in fixing it up so it's easier to work on. H:TABLE explains how to edit wikitables, if you want to learn. -- asilvering (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Just poking my nose in here because I'm interested in formatting it - asilvering, my first impression was that it should be a list of bullet points instead of a table. Is that what you were also thinking, or were you leaning towards trying to make it a less complicated table? The current formatting in edit mode is certainly formidable! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's usually done without bullet points, but I just checked a random "Timeline of..." article, Timeline of historic inventions, and that's how it's done there. I think lists are better than tables for anything where we don't have some need to reorder the cells, like for example in COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory, where readers might want to organize the information by deaths, cases, cases per population, etc. Since there's no need to reorder things in a history timeline, I'd personally prefer a list, but honestly if someone wanted to make a simpler table that would still be an upgrade. -- asilvering (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I agree with your reasoning completely. In the next few days I should have some free time, and will have a go at listifying the article if no one else has begun work on it before I get there - it seems like a very useful project if I can only stop myself from going down a Wiki-rabbithole and coming out of it with about 100 new tabs and a deeper knowledge of India's history... StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Kellycrak88 (21:04, 5 May 2024)

Hello - I noticed you're my mentor. Sorry to bother you but I was wondering if you could help me with a troublesome editor that has hijacked Killone Abbey page. The entire dialogue is on the Talk page. My WP:COI is that I am a local that has known these lands my entire life and I have ancestors buried in the ancient burial grounds as do many locals. The contentious sentence added to the page states there is a public right of way. The sentence needs to be removed as there has never been a public right of way through Newhall Estate. I have provided this user ample evidence on the Talk page which he refuses to accept. The reference link he's using mentions a (private) right of way - not a public right of way. He has provided no evidence for a public right of way and refuses my evidence. This user sadly has a biased agenda. I gave tried everything to reason with him and reach consensus. I've provided him sources including the responsible government minister stating there is no public right and no pubic access without permission which he also refuses to correctly quote on the page. The sentence is false and needs removing from an encyclopaedia article. He has left a warning on my page not to edit the page again. If you could please advise on next steps I would be most grateful for your help. Thank you! --Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This will take some time to look into, but I wanted to reply now to confirm that I've read it. You are in an edit war, that much is clear, so you should not edit that article any further until this is resolved one way or another. There are some dispute resolution processes on wikipedia that you might be interested in reading about (eg WP:3O, WP:DR, WP:RFC, WP:ANI), but I don't have any recommendations just yet, since I haven't had a full look at the discussion. I'm hoping this is something we can resolve without resorting to any of those processes. -- asilvering (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright, that took much less time than I expected, as it turns out it wasn't as complicated as all that - you're simply correct. I've made my own edits to the article, and hopefully that's the end of it, though it may not be, and we'll have to re-evaluate if anything further occurs. I hope you have already learned from this that wikipedians tend to operate on a hair trigger when it comes to sources that look dodgy - you are going to have a really uphill battle trying to convince anyone of anything if you start from evidence that looks weird or off, especially when there are already some neutrality concerns, as there was in this case.

What I hope you will learn from this is that it is not productive to assume someone else has a biased agenda. The editor you've been edit-warring with probably would never have questioned your edits in the first place, if they hadn't already been primed to be on the lookout for bad-faith actors, as on the talk page of this article. They refused your accurate evidence because they stopped assuming good faith, and you couldn't convince them otherwise. But then you did the same thing - you have concluded that This user sadly has a biased agenda. I don't think that's likely. They appear to simply want the article to represent what the truth is, as far as we can determine using reliable sources. They've become biased against you, because the interaction hasn't gone very well, but that's not the same as having some agenda they're trying to push. -- asilvering (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Understood, lessons certainly learnt here - thank you for intervening. As he added an edit war to my personal Talk page which I'm assuming blocks me from further edits to the page? In equal retaliation I've added the same warning to his page, I hope that was the right thing to do? However it appears he has already reverted your changes to adding back the non-encyclopaedic statements. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

No, that was not the right thing to do. I restored reference content and engaged in the talk page with Asilvering, which is exactly the right thing to do, per WP:BRD. And here I find you again making personal attacks against me, despite previously being warned. If this editor wasn't a mentor who will hopefully give you some good advice, I would already have a WP:AN/I report raised. Asilvering, if you look at the page history, you'll see I already compromised, adding in referenced content from the County Council et al. Compare this version to the current one. In return, I've been attacked, been accused of having an agenda, being biased, told to leave the page, been told that screenshots on dodgy image hosting platforms are reliable sources I should trust, been told to perform WP:OR, and more. My patience has limits. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bastun surely you should know that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You added the edit war block to my talk page first. I haven’t escalated and reported you yet, I have attempted to be as civil as possible and reach consensus with you. Stepping aside, as I have, letting neutral editors to take over is a sensible way forward. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I am a neutral editor. You're the one with the WP:COI, finally admitted. You got an edit-warring template because you were about to break the three-revert rule. You have not attempted to be civil, you have repeatedly engaged in personal attacks, despite being warned, and you did it yet again, above. You can open an AN/I thread whenever you'd like. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologise, my comments were not meant to offend you Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bastunbaston if you really did want the truth, as @Asilvering believes so, you should have correctly quoted the government minister and removed non-encyclopaedic contentious statements a right of way (without context or full explanation) confuses readers and is unnecessary for an encyclopaedic article, hence the confusion in the first place with someone calling it a public right of way and Talk discussion Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

In fact, the situation is more complicated (item 6, no. 1). The Banner talk 23:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Banner Thank you for providing the link, the submitted motion by J Flynn incorrectly stated that the "council have maintained this road in the past and a public right of way that has existed for centuries"

Betty Devanny, the Administrative Officer, replied correcting the submission saying:

"Killone graveyard is located on the grounds of Killone Abbey and is accessed via a roadway through a private landholding – Newhall Estate. The graveyard and the abbey are registered in the folio of the landowner. This property has changed ownership since July 2016 and is now registered in the name of the new landowner.

There is a gate and pedestrian access to this burial ground. The land surrounding the abbey and the graveyard is farming land and livestock were on the land up to the time of the change of ownership.

The previous landowner maintained this access road in the past and it may have received previous funding from Clare County Council under a local improvement scheme which facilitated works on non public roads.

Killone Abbey and Killone Graveyard are recorded monuments and are afforded protection under national monuments legislation. The OPW maintain Killone Abbey. The previous landowner has facilitated access to the burial ground and it is anticipated that this will continue with the new landowner.

Members requested follow up with the new landowner on this matter."

As I said in the full discussion here https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Killone_Abbey access is not a problem with permission and anyone that has descendants buried in Killone can make arrangements with the Estate owners. Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

key point made here was "the graveyard and the abbey are registered in the folio of the landowner" which means privately owned, but a protected site under national monuments legislation Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Banner, @Kellycrak88, I'm going to copy the above comments to the article talk page, since I think it's best to centralize the discussion there. -- asilvering (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

and they clearly state it's a non public road so that should further settle the public right of way argument Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

So far, it only gives evidence about the situation under the former landowners. Not the present, sorry. But when you (Kellycrak88) prefer to restart the edit war, that will be at your risk. The Banner talk 00:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Well I have provided half a dozen sources on the Talk page which does show the current situation just the same, albeit.... images uploaded on dodgy image sites, not meant for secondary sources just to show you guys Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Banner including recent facebook comments with the TD there and stating the same Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know Joe personally. But Facebook is not a reliable source. The Banner talk 00:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I ask that both of you please continue your discussion on the talk page of the article, not here. -- asilvering (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Malibeni on Jack Hodgins (Bones) (16:31, 12 May 2024)

How to creat page --Malibeni (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Brianssw (14:23, 8 May 2024)

Hello Asilvering,

A friend of mine has asked me to create a bio page for her. I have done so in the 'sandbox'. How do I get that published publicly?

Regards, Brianssw --Brianssw (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Brianssw, what you've written is basically a linkedin profile, so if you publish it publicly, it will be deleted soon after. Wikipedia is only looking for articles on topics that meet our notability guidelines (see WP:N). Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. -- asilvering (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering My friend, for whom I am trying to create a new Wikepage, already has a Wikipage: Nicole Henry Fine Art. She married and and wants to change the title page name. We could not figure out how to do it. If we could change the title and make other edits, a new page is not necessary. Is changing an existing page's title possible?

Outside of changing the title (if it is technically not possible), Nicole is looking to mimic these pages: George Edward Glass, Duke Buchan. If we used the headers (Early life, Education, Career, Philanthropy, Private Life) of those pages as a template for Nicole's page, would the new page be acceptable? As one sees, we have many links to outside sources, which, as best as I can tell, is the driving factor behind "notability." Brianssw (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Brianssw, if you want to keep working on this, before you do anything else, you will need to follow the conflict-of-interest instructions I'm about to leave on your talk page.

Regarding changing a page name, that's simple: basically what we do is move it to the new title. Is the new title you want "Nicole McGraw Fine Art"? Google tells me that business is permanently closed. Is that incorrect? -- asilvering (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I found the Conflict-of-Interest page. I don't THINK it applies to me. I am a professional tutor and have worked for her children in that capacity. I have an engineering degree, and Nicole asked me if I would figure out how to change the title of her page, which I could not. I tried to create a new page, and here we are. I have nothing to do with marketing or PR, not even for my own business. I win all my customers through good service which prompts word of mouth recommendations: I just got four inquiries today.

Nicole found quite a few people selling services for getting Wiki-Pages placed for $100's of dollars. She did not want to spend that kind of money on something that should be easy. Apparently, it is not easy ... I can see/appreciate where Wikipedia does not want a lot of junk on the site, through, and therefore has a filtration process.

In any case, her gallery is closed. She got married, and her husband told her that working 7 days a week from morning till evening is not a good way to live: she agreed and closed it down. The new name for the page should be just "Nicole McGraw", highlighting what she did for the gallery, while adding the other business ventures, along with her philanthropy endeavors (she is cooking right now for a fund-raising event as I type). She is interested in adding early life, education, and private life to boot. Brianssw (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I wrote you the previous comment and then forgot to give you the talk page explanation. I've sent you that now. You do have a COI, since you know Nicole personally. Don't worry about the paid stuff at the end of that explanation, since it doesn't apply to you in this case.

Since you want to make an article about her, rather than about her gallery, I don't suggest renaming the old article. It's better to do what you've done and start with a new draft entirely. For it to be accepted, you need to be able to show that she meets WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Normally the former is easier (criterion 4d in particular). The other criteria might sound easier to meet, but by "significant" we really mean it - something like documenta, not a local exhibition. Alternatively, if you can find a lot of newspaper coverage of her in relation to her gallery, that might help you show that she meets WP:GNG.

Regarding the paid wikipedia pages, there are some legitimate paid editors on wikipedia, but they follow some very strict guidelines. Anyone charging money for a biography article is almost certainly a scam. If anyone contacts you off-wiki about getting the draft you're working on published, that is very definitely a scam. WP:SCAM has some more details, and an email address for you to report scams if someone tries this on you. -- asilvering (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Nicole is interested in a 'legitimate paid editor on wikipedia'. How does that work? What is the cost? How do we contact him/her? Brianssw (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Brianssw, sorry for not getting back to you earlier. There is a list of paid editing companies at WP:PAIDLIST. You'll notice that almost all of them are "undisclosed paid" - those are scammers. The "disclosed paid" ones are fine. I don't know how active any of them are, or if any of them are for hire. -- asilvering (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Green GA Editathon June 2024 - Going Back in Time

Hello Asilvering:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in June 2024!

Running from June 1 to 30, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Going Back in Time! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 20 centuries by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Caruggeri18 (17:37, 17 May 2024)

Hi, what is the general rule of thumb when it comes to what needs to be vs. what shouldn't be cited? --Caruggeri18 (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Caruggeri18, and welcome to Wikipedia! I think the essay at WP:WHEN answers your question, but if you've read that and still have questions, do let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from KAD1427 (04:02, 23 May 2024)

I have observed some of the Wikipedia uploads against my name are without a credible investigation. I want to correct it. --KAD1427 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2024

Women in Red | June 2024, Volume 10, Issue 6, Numbers 293, 294, 308, 309, 310 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ women | Wiki Loves Pride | Women in Music | Alphabet run X, Y & Z Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon June 2024 - Going Back in Time The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th Tip of the month: Find a Grave is NOT a reliable source (as it is user-generated content). It can be used to look for biographical clues. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 07:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question regarding the bot policy/alternative accounts

Hey, you mentored me for the start of my Wikipedia editing (and I've been doing pretty well for myself, thanks!), so I figured you'd be a good person to ask this question. I've started to edit with AutoWikiBrowser, but majority of the edits I've done with it are Wikiproject category labeling. These edits are important to my Wikiproject, but they don't have an effect on the rest of the wiki. Should I make an alternative account (following WP:LEGITSOCK), and if I do, do I have to follow the same steps as creating a bot? Also, if I do make the account, how should I request the permission on WP:PERM/AWB? I was wondering this because the edits arent automated, but I don't really want them on my main Wikipedia account. Thanks, BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If you don't really want them on your main Wikipedia account, that's a fair reason to make an alternate account. It isn't a bot, so you don't need to follow the steps for bots. If you've properly linked the two accounts (by some obvious notice on your userpage, for example, and naming the other one like BerryForAWB or something), it will be clear to the admin at WP:PERM what's going on when you apply from the AWB account. That said, I don't spend much time at that noticeboard, and you may want to ask one of the admins that handles it if they'd give you the perm on an alt account before you go to the trouble of actually making one. I have seen perm requests denied for "you don't really need an alt account for that" reasons. -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from KAD1427 (02:29, 24 May 2024)

Hi..

I would like to discuss the editing issue. Let me know a convenient time.

Thanks --KAD1427 (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@KAD1427, simply ask a question here and I'll do my best to answer it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead Too Short for Actor/Actress 2

Hello~ Thank you for very kind and details in showing me those ways. I just login again; happy to see your reply... from the topic that got archived. I will try them all! But first I think I need to take care of one draft that I left months ago then go for other actors' articles. Thank you 💖 Miracle for0110 (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Miracle for0110 Good luck, and have fun! -- asilvering (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

About Nazran uprising

Hello @Asilvering! I'm sorry to inform that I will be once again not able to answer you points yet in the GA review as I'm little bit busy. I will try to answer them on the Weekend. Best regards, WikiEditor^123… 21:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

As I'm sure you've noticed I'm also a bit underwater these days, so it's no rush at all. -- asilvering (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Kaffer bbn (04:29, 29 May 2024)

hello --Kaffer bbn (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Kaffer bbn, do you have a question about editing wikipedia? -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from MarkWHowe (14:53, 12 May 2024)

Hello. Just found this section and of course have many questions. Yesterday I was working on 'First transcontinental railroad'. I don't recall how it was left but pretty sure it was not 'published', but today there is no record of my editing. Was it deleted? How would I know? --MarkWHowe (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @MarkWHowe, sorry for not getting back to you earlier. It looks to me like you didn't make any edits to that article, so they're gone, I'm afraid, unless you've got it cached somehow or left it open in a browser tab. You always need to push "publish" to save your changes. -- asilvering (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I am new to editing; I have made large edits to some and minor edits to others, and have pushed "publish" as you advise. Now I wonder, are there others that review what I have published and react? Do I need to call attention to my edits to prompt review? &c.? MarkWHowe (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe edits only need to be reviewed under some specific circumstances (not applicable in your case), but there are editors that monitor recent edits to check them for vandalism and so on. You don't need to call attention to your edits if you don't want to. If you're hoping to get additional eyes on something you've done, you can write a message on the article talk page, or write a message on the talk page of the relevant wikiproject. -- asilvering (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Kumar9098 (02:19, 1 June 2024)

Can write any article without adding references ?? --Kumar9098 (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No. -- asilvering (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Aeon Trasazz (08:16, 3 June 2024)

how do i find suggested easy work articles that recquire minor changes --Aeon Trasazz (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aeon Trasazz, your newcomer homepage should have some suggestions for you. Do you have anything in particular you're interested in working on? I think Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup is a good one to start with, since it requires writing but no additional research. -- asilvering (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from UnsungHistory (19:24, 6 June 2024)

How do i put a "citation needed"? --UnsungHistory (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@UnsungHistory, see Template:CN. -- asilvering (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Marksant on M. P. Moller (23:08, 11 June 2024)

I would like to add the fact that during WW2, Moller Pipe Organ Co. built wooden aircraft wing spars for the Fairchild Aircraft Co. i have a picture of their stamp from a spar that I’m restoring. --Marksant (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I've responded to the recent edit at Talk:M._P._Moller. Oblivy (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Oblivy. @Marksant, it looks like you've got this sorted out now? -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

But I still can’t add the image Marksant (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's been added already. Please check. Oblivy (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Marksant (02:15, 12 June 2024)

I’m trying to add an image. I never see the “Insert” menu mentioned in the help article.

I’ve uploaded my image to WikiCommons. --Marksant (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Bagshaw S R (16:01, 12 June 2024)

Hi, why have you flagged my page for deletion ? 🤷‍♂️ --Bagshaw S R (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bagshaw S R, welcome to wikipedia. I didn't flag your page for deletion - that was @Vanderwaalforces. It looks like you probably wrote a wikipedia article-style biography of yourself on your userpage, which was understood to be promotional both by Vanderwaalforces and the deleting admin. -- asilvering (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep, Asilvering is correct. See WP:NOTWEBHOST for more information and guidance. Also see WP:Autobiography. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from MarkWHowe on User:MarkWHowe/sandbox (21:56, 7 June 2024)

Hello; re working in sandbox. I have found I must be careful I don't lose what I am working on. The only way I know is to "publish" each time I want to 'save' my work. I assume this is not a real publish since it is in my sandbox and I am just 'playing'. Also I have not been summarizing edits. What is normal protocol.? I like to save my work regularly/ often. --MarkWHowe (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe Yes, "publish" is the only way. Sorry it has a confusing name - but you are working live! Any edit you make is published so that anyone on the internet can read it. (They aren't likely to find it, since it's hidden in your sandbox, but anyone can read it if they have the URL.) Normal protocol is to write an edit summary for every edit. I agree this can get a bit silly when you're just working alone. I tend to just say "new paragraph" or "expansion" or "add text from (source)" when I'm working by myself. It might help to think of it this way: if you realized you made a huge mistake in a particular edit and needed to revert it, what would help you find the edit?

Alternatively, some people write their articles in text files on their computer and then copy-paste them to wikipedia when they're ready. You might prefer this if you write slowly but are paranoid about losing your work. Although that describes me, I personally prefer to work online. -- asilvering (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! OK, this is a biggie. I note an article 'Cedar Rapids and Missouri River Railroad'; it's actual predecessor is the Chicago Iowa and Nebraska railroad that has no article but the most logical thing would be to combine them in one article. Is there protocol for doing this? A query [or link] for either should bring up the same article. MarkWHowe (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe, what we usually do in this case is create a WP:REDIRECT and then, like you suggest, write about the topic in the related article. There's a redirect-creation wizard at WP:MAKER to make that easy for you. -- asilvering (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I just did that; did it work? MarkWHowe (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying this for the first time; I tried 'publishing' a query on 'talk' for the CI&N and am not sure what that will precipitate. I used a 'redirect wizard' to cause the Chicago Iowa & Nebraska to bring up the Cedar Rapids & Missouri River Railroad. MarkWHowe (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You did it correctly! I've added a wikiproject banner to the talk page of the redirect - no need to redirect that one too, it's fine as-is. You may also want to make one for Chicago Iowa and Nebraska railroad, with "and" rather than the "&". -- asilvering (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm some confused. From what you sent I see the redirect, but when I do a search I don't; only the Chicago Kansas and Nebraska. It appears the 'and' has already been substituted for the '&'; the above link in red 'does not exist' but we know it does. I don't know what a 'wikiproject banner' is yet; is it something I should add to my edits? btw I note an illegal citation [3 Milo Smith] but I have a legal one to substitute; thanks everyone for being patient. [or is it legal??]MarkWHowe (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe, can you clarify what you mean by "when I do a search"? Precisely what steps are you taking? Here is what I am doing:

1. I copy-paste "Chicago Iowa & Nebraska" from the above message into the search bar
2. the drop-down results includes "Chicago Iowa & Nebraska Railroad". I click on this.
3. I am now at the article Cedar Rapids and Missouri River Railroad, since I was redirected, as intended.

I assume you are doing something slightly different, and that's what's causing a different result, but I don't know enough to be able to fix that one.

The link above in red is red because it does not exist. There is no redirect there (yet). The redirect is from Chicago Iowa & Nebraska Railroad, with the ampersand. Redirects only work if they are completely exact, including special characters and capitalization. The full search function (what you're linked to if you click the "search for articles containing..." in the drop-down once you've typed something into the search bar) is more forgiving. This is the result of a full search for "Chicago Iowa & Nebraska Railroad". (I'll answer your other questions in a second reply.) -- asilvering (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, for example I do a search for 'cedar rapids & missouri river railroad' ; no caps, ampersand instead of 'and', completely wrong, and I still get directed to the right place. I search Chicago Iowa & Nebraska w/wo ampersand, w/wo railroad, w/wo caps and I never get to the correct wiki place. I am using google; I have not tried with chrome or yahoo in case that makes a difference. MarkWHowe (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried doing that search since my earlier comment (18:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC))? If not, can you try again? It appears to be correctly indexed on google for me. I just tried it right now. -- asilvering (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Nope; whether I use caps or not makes no difference. If I use the ampersand the Henry Ford museum comes up top; if I use the 'and' the Ames History museum comes up top. No sign of the CI&N. If I select the red link above I am prompted to create a new article. I tried it on yahoo using chrome and got a different array but no CI&N. MarkWHowe (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you're confusing google search and wikipedia search. Wikipedia does not have any control over external search providers like google. The redirect is currently indexed by google, so I'm not sure what problem is causing the article to not show in your google search results. Either way, it is out of our control. What we can control is our own internal search and our redirects. Redirects, as I have said, will only work if they are exact. -- asilvering (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, back to the second set of questions: Wikiproject banners are the things you see in yellow on the Talk page of articles. It's a very good idea to add them to any new articles you create, since it helps other editors find them for collaboration and various maintenance tasks. This is the edit I did that added WP:TRAINS. You can use WP:RATER to make this easier for you in general, but if you just work on trains articles you can also just copy-paste the templates from my edit.

Regarding the illegal citation, I'm not sure what [3 Milo Smith] is, can you explain? -- asilvering (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Citation #3 for Milo uses a 'wikipedia source'. I was told it is illegal to use a wikip citation but this 'source' might be outside the prohibition?? It never got flagged as bad. MarkWHowe (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That's wikisource, not wikipedia. It's fine to use wikisource. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from GlobalFushions (06:46, 19 June 2024)

can i cite a website as reference ,by help of which i am able to edit wikipedia if yes then how to do it because most of the times my edit are removed --GlobalFushions (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Reported to UAA for a promotional username. The Night Watch (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)