Jump to content

User talk:Asilvering

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, my comments were not meant to offend you Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
In fact, the situation is more complicated (item 6, no. 1). The Banner talk 23:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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.wikipedia.org/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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@The Banner including recent facebook comments with the TD there and stating the same Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know Joe personally. But Facebook is not a reliable source. The Banner talk 00:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

Women in Green GA Editathon June 2024 - Going Back in Time[edit]

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)[reply]

Question from Caruggeri18 (17:37, 17 May 2024)[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Women in Red June 2024[edit]

Women in Red | June 2024, Volume 10, Issue 6, Numbers 293, 294, 308, 309, 310


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

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

Question regarding the bot policy/alternative accounts[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hi..

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

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

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

Lead Too Short for Actor/Actress 2[edit]

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)[reply]

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

About Nazran uprising[edit]

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, WikiEditor123… 21:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asilvering&oldid=1227871876"