User talk:Asilvering

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6

I am trying to edit an entire page (or delete it and create another) and do not know how to do this. I've no idea who created the original page, but none of the information is current or accurate. Do you have any sort of tutorial for such things? --Nia Technique (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nia Technique! There are lots of tutorials out there. I've dropped a message on your talk page with some helpful links. WP:FIRST is probably the most helpful thing you can read right now. It's about creating a new article from scratch, but almost everything it says will still apply. Really though, it's pretty easy: just click "edit" and get to it! Make sure that any changes you make are supported by references (see WP:REFB for the basics), or someone will probably undo your work. What's the article you want to edit? Deleting it and starting over is probably not the right idea, but I can have a look and let you know what I think. -- asilvering (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original page called "Nia (fitness)" is titled incorrectly. This is why I assumed I needed to delete that page and begin a new page, (or are they called "articles" ???) The correct title should be Nia Technique, in which case, if I edit the "Nia (fitness)" page, how might I edit the title? Likewise, how do I simply begin a new page? Does the word "User" end up in the title? Is there a preview method? Thanks! Nia Technique (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nia Technique, I'm going to start a Requested Move for this page instead of moving it directly, since it's been at this location for a long time and I'm not sure if the move is contentious (ie, I'm not sure if a reasonable person might disagree with it). See WP:RM for more info on this kind of move. Once I've opened up the request, you can comment on the talk page to explain your reasoning for why you support the move to the title Nia Technique.

I'm not sure if you just named your wikipedia account after the page you intended to edit, or whether you're affiliated with Nia in some way. If you are affiliated with Nia, please see WP:COI and fill out a declaration.

They're both "pages" and "articles". Right now you're on my talk page, which is a "page" but not an "article". You will find some editors saying "we don't have pages, we have articles" - frankly, that's not true, but if you're referring to one of wikipedia's articles, it's better to say "article" and not "page" or you may attract that kind of comment. -- asilvering (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much.

Yes, I am affiliated with the company, Nia Technique, and its original current Founder, Creator, Author, & Educator, Debbie Rosas @ https://www.linkedin.com/in/debbie-rosas-66541113 I have all the current citations, websites, and information for corrections and updates on Wikipedia for Nia Technique, now over 40+ years since it began.

Upon directive, I opened the account, "Nia Technique" and followed instructions to create a Page "Nia Technique," as prompted by Wikipedia. I saw no indicator for creating an Article and my intention was to correct the current "Nia (fitness) Page, which contains some errors and very few citations. The correct title of any Wikipedia Page should be "Nia Technique," since "Nia" is an abbreviation used to refer to "Nia Technique" for "Nia" Educational Programs, "Nia" Teachers, etc.

If the current "Nia (fitness)" is a "Page," rather than an "Article," that is fine. What is important is that when searches are made for either "Nia" or "Nia Technique," the Wikipedia result should be titled correctly with the correct information. "Nia," for example, should not be referred to simply as "fitness," (although that word is used on one of the company websites), rather, it should be referred to as "Health," and "Wellness," and "Lifestyle" based on the "Nia Technique." This reflects the information on the company websites, https://nianow.com/ , https://niaondemand.com/ , and https://debbierosas.com/

I will await instructions regarding the "Requested Move" and I will complete the WP:COI form. Please let me know if I need to clarify any other information.

Thanks again, very, very much, for your valuable time and assistance. Nia Technique (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been moved, and is now at Nia Technique. Please use Template:Edit COI on the Talk page of the article to propose changes. -- asilvering (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I've clicked on the link to Nia Technique and clicked on the Talk page. Once there, I cannot locate the Template: Edit COI on the Talk page of the article to propose changes. If you could please advise? Nia Technique (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nia Technique, you need to place the template there yourself. -- asilvering (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please let me know how I place the template there myself? 2601:5C3:C201:1EF0:E8A0:A6B9:D228:64C1 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions are on the page Template:Edit COI. If you are confused about a particular part, do let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for leaving comments on my Draft:The Babin Republic (Jan Matejko)! As suggested, I have added more citations. Do you think the article is ready to go public, or should I edit it some more? Zumot (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zumot great, this is helpful! Can you fix the link that is in footnote 1? Right now, this doesn't lead me to a page on the website that contains the information in the sentences it's footnoting. -- asilvering (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shoot - actually, I misread one of your new footnotes. These are definitely places that contain the information like Italian Renaissance painters too were fond of placing the scenes that typically played out indoors, such as banquets, in the great outdoors. But what we're looking for is citations that specifically support the content of the article you've drafted - ie, do you have a secondary source that is specifically linking Matejko's painting to Renaissance Italian humanism? -- asilvering (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@asilvering Hi! Unfortunately, there is not much coverage of the painting in the secondary sources. Should we scrap the link to Renaissance Italian humanism entirely? --Zumot (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zumot I think so, unfortunately, since the premise of a wikipedia article is that it is written from secondary sources - otherwise, what you end up doing is WP:OR. It's extremely obviously pastoral, so I wouldn't call it "original research" to say so, but something like The aesthetics and setting of the painting are closely tied to those favoured in Renaissance humanism is making a specific claim about the painting that someone could disagree with or prove otherwise (someone could say, for example, that the aesthetics and setting are closely tied to those favoured by his contemporaries, or whatever, instead), so we do want a statement like that to come from a published, secondary source. -- asilvering (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I have removed any mentions of similarities between my painting and Italian Renaissance paintigs, as I had no literature to back up this claim. However, I left the discussion of pastoral literature as it relates to the people portrayed in the painting and is not too far-fetched. I hope it's good to go now! Zumot (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted! Thanks for the article. -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! You have taught me a lot, thank you for guiding me through the process. I also managed to edit interlanguage links and connect the article with its Polish version. Zumot (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it! Good luck with your future articles. -- asilvering (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asilvering. Thanks for your many responses at Tea house; in particular, one today here. You seem to have understood what they were asking, and I did not. What was all that about homepage-selected topics, and where do I read up on that? Thanks in advance, Mathglot (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot I got a newcomer homepage when I joined, but you won't have started with one. I'm not sure if you can turn it on. If you go to Preferences > User Profile, and scroll all the way to the bottom, do you see "Newcomer editor features"? If so, check "Display newcomer homepage". Then you can find it here, assuming I haven't messed up that URL. -- asilvering (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's quite interesting, I can see why that would be helpful to new users, and the stats on the right are interesting for anyone. Now I see what the selected topics are. I'm guessing they are generic topics? Because it certainly doesn't seem to be related to anything I've done, but then, that makes sense if it's aimed at newbies who haven't done much yet. Thanks for pointing me there; the user's question makes a whole lot more sense now! Mathglot (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recall being asked what kinds of topics I was interested in (I picked "history" and "literature"). I assume they're ORES topics. If there's no way to select topics of interest when you're not actually a noob going through the new-user onboarding stuff, I have no idea how it might pick them. If you're particularly curious someone at WP:GTF probably knows.

I agree it's a neat feature, though if your interests are history and literature it will quickly turn you towards existential despair. I got served Ichabod Crane (even more tags on it then), which made me go crying to growth team, and then some Nazi propaganda (I am not exaggerating). Basically, the homepage made me learn how to use AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there is a vandal on Wikipedia page about Nogais who goes by the name Turkiishh. Please help me revert his vandalism. --Vofa (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vofa, I've reverted the most recent unexplained content removal, but it looks like you've been trying to fight this in edit summaries, not the talk page. Please have a look at WP:BRD. If someone else is repeatedly making edits that make no sense, that you disagree with, that don't follow the sources, etc, try to bring them to the talk page of the article to work it out. -- asilvering (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay,thank you for restoring justice. I knew it but the sockpuppet account of Turkiishh refused to open a discussion when I offered him. Take care!:) Vofa (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't get someone to discuss with you, and you've really done everything you can to try, the next place to go is WP:ANI. Explain what's going on clearly and briefly, list what you've done to try to enter into dialogue with the other editor. But remember that your conduct will be inspected too, if you do this. It looks to me like you have previously added some unsourced content to that article, which won't reflect well on you. Your edits should always come with a source of some kind, but especially so when you are in some kind of editing dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a draft based on a List of preserved Airbus aircraft. What do you think of it. I think it should be accepted 220.240.13.215 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will stand a better chance if you can find more reliable secondary sources. -- asilvering (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found more reliable sources for each aircraft such as the Airbus A380s that were preserved. I would recommend it gets accepted because I have spent lots of time doing that article. 220.240.13.215 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Now you just need to wait for a reviewer. -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:F-WUAB. Why don't you review this?

Also, if you read my comment, its a disambiguation-class article meaning no references are in that article as per WP:DABNOT 220.240.159.198 (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth mentioning I'm working on both articles as drafts. 220.240.159.198 (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't review that because I didn't see it; typically I work on books, academics, and authors. Since it's been declined now, I suggest waiting to resubmit it until those drafts you're working on are approved. -- asilvering (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've resubmitted it. 220.240.159.198 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey read that you teach undregraduates in your Clovermoss Reflection: writing articles about contemporary fiction, is a really wonderful way to get involved in the Education program -- its a good way to have students thinking about the impact of literature, rather than just reading books in the abstract -- its also what got me hooked when I was a undergraduate. I would reccomend trying: https://wikiedu.org/

Also, not sure if you have found Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels -- lots of great resources there! Sadads (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad to hear that someone got hooked on Wikipedia editing thanks to their wikied experience! I've always wondered if that ever manages to pull anyone. I'd be interested to hear more about your experience. Care to fill out Clovermoss's survey yourself? -- asilvering (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can i create my own wiki page or just editing --TJLucy (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TJLucy you can create articles on topics that wikipedia doesn't have yet. See WP:FIRST for more information. -- asilvering (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

مرحبا كيف يمكننى انا أكون كاتبا وتستفيد ماليا --Nader ezzat omer (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm only here to answer questions about editing Wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've rebuilt Siege of Janjira (1682) as Siege of Janjira. It seems to have reduced into a redirect earlier. Could you please check if I made any mistakes here? Regards. Imperial^[AFCND] 16:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado Sure, if I don't get back to you by the end of the weekend, feel free to ping me again. Just double-checking, when you made the new article that's at Siege of Janjira now, you didn't use any of the content from the previous version, right? -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I just realized that there was already an article titled "Siege of Janjira (1682)" shortly after I created this one. No, I haven't used any content from the earlier article so far. Please take your time. ◉⁠‿⁠◉ Imperial^[AFCND] 17:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine! Just wanted to make sure we didn't have to ask for a WP:HISTMERGE. -- asilvering (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can you suggest me a video about it please? --Ehsan.Bareq (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ehsan.Bareq, I'm not sure what "it" is, so I can't, but I think you might be misunderstanding what mentorship is about. I'm here to help you with questions about writing wikipedia articles. -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering, Hope you doing good, Requesting you to please review this draft article Draft:Sreshth Movies. Thankyou! ~~ Nss999 (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nss999, Indian film isn't a particular specialty of mine so I'll leave that in the queue for now. But if you want a tip, I think you may want to reduce the number of footnotes you have here. Many of them are footnotes that obviously will not help show that the film company is notable - they're just news briefs like "this film is coming soon". It's fine to use these kinds of references in general, but when you have a lot of them in a draft it makes it harder for the reviewer to find sources that show notability. What you need to show is in-depth coverage of the film company itself. -- asilvering (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Asilvering, Thank you so much for the tip. As suggested by you, I have removed some references. Thankyou ~~ Nss999 (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four keeps, no deletes but the nominator, and a bunch of discussion... and that's a no consensus? Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left it as "no consensus" since the point that was actually being argued in the discussion was the much broader issue (ie, do we keep series articles in general or not), and that discussion hasn't come to a close yet but has instead moved to another talk page. I did consider closing it as keep, since indeed there was no one but the nominator arguing for deletion, so I made sure that the closing comment pointed out that there was no trend towards deletion whatsoever. It seemed to me to be the most accurate way of describing the discussion that had actually happened on that AfD.

Perhaps that was too conservative! But since "no consensus" means the page remains in mainspace for now, and anyone seeking to reopen the discussion would have to wait for the broader WP:NBOOK one to end anyway, I didn't think that a no-consensus close would result in an outcome that was against consensus. If someone tries to do anything weird with Safehold in the meantime while that broader discussion is still going on, we can revert them and tell them to wait. Right now it doesn't look like that NBOOK conversation is going anywhere other than "duh, we should keep series articles", so it looks like my AfD close will effectively end up being a keep close in the end.

That's my reasoning, anyway. Perhaps overly coloured by this DRV (where I note you agreed with my close as keep and others said it should have been no consensus). -- asilvering (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the issue under discussion and the issue being closed are two different things. Don't get distracted by people going off on tangents, even as a NAC, since plenty of us regulars do it all the time. Fact is, despite a bunch of back and forth, no one but the nom put in a bolded delete opinion and no one really argued convincingly for a merge outcome, so the correct outcome would have been to keep. Not worth a DRV, just a bit of advice to remember that when closing your job is to disposition the article before the community, not chase all the rabbit trails we've laid. :-) Jclemens (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304 Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Gender studies | Health Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman. Tip of the month: If you run into technical problems, you might find help on our Tools and technical support page 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

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello. I am in the process of documenting the Barkintji language of western NSW and also their culture before they are lost forever in time. Would it be possible for people out there in the ether/internet to contact me with a view to helping me to collate the culture and also to put down in words the spoken language to form a dictionary? This may take a decade to do but as I am a retiree I now make this one of my goals in life. --Philip Spangler Mew (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Philip Spangler Mew, have you tried contacting the people at https://languageconservancy.org.au/? It looks like that's what you're looking for. -- asilvering (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get an image for a page for a piece of media? If it requires an author's contact, but they don't respond, then what? --The Miracle Girls (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Miracle Girls if it requires their response and they don't give you one, you're out of luck, and you don't have an image. We can't force people to provide free images. If it's possible to use a non-free image in your case, WP:NOTFREE will explain the details. -- asilvering (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for the advice. Although lets say I or someone else produced an image of the thing. Is that allowed to be used so long as it meets standards / guidelines? The Miracle Girls (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the someone else I would ask if it was ok, to clarify. The Miracle Girls (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the easy answer is that anything that meets the appropriate standard can be used. The more important question is whether you're applying the correct standard. I can't answer that one unless I know what you're talking about specifically. -- asilvering (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for the information! The Miracle Girls (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Asilvering! Have you forgotten to review Nazran uprising? Best regards, WikiEditor^123… 10:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, I've just been ill, unfortunately. I'll get to it asap, but I don't think that will be today. Sorry. -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Asilvering,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,can you please help again? The Tuurkiiiish user probably vandalised the article 7 times,he’s a sockpuppet and tries to erode information. Help me revert his changes on the page of Nogais https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nogais he wrote ,,source doesn’t work,, they do work,here ://iccrimea.org/scholarly/jankowski.html https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334168544_The_main_phases_of_the_earliest_Nogais'_history_in_Kazakhstan much appreciated --Vofa (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vofa, that source is broken. Here is the version that was reverted: [1]. You can clearly see that the reference he's talking about triggers an error. The error is: Cite error: The named reference Association of Nogais in Turkey 2024 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). -- asilvering (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll make it work tommorow. Good night. Vofa (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm new. Is there anything I should be aware of to help where I can? --Medium419 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Medium419, welcome to wikipedia! I've put a template message on your Talk page that has a lot of helpful links to get you started. What are you interested in editing? -- asilvering (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heya! Just checking in to see how you're doing. Think I saw you said you've been feeling unwell recently, so I hope you're recovering okay. All the best to you always <3 --Grnrchst (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst thanks for the concern! I managed to combine end-of-term marking with a stomach bug and a migraine flare; can't say it was a fun experience. I've ditched the stomach bug (I hope) and most of the marking, so things are looking up. -- asilvering (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

Could you please clarify why my edition was cancelled? Here is an article — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_password_managers --Xthread (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xthread, I have no idea. You'll have to ask the editor who removed what you added. -- asilvering (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Simple English considered it's own language on Wikipedia? For example, I'm aware that there are administrators for different language (ex. English Wikipedia administrators are different people than Spanish Wikipedia administrators,) would this mean that Simple English has its own administrators and such, or is it just considered a "fork" of English? --Berryforperpetuity (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Berryforperpetuity, yes, it's its own separate wikipedia, so it's a separate admin team. There aren't very many of them, actually: full list here. -- asilvering (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cómo creo dinero --MartiiinPerez (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not on wikipedia, that's for sure. -- asilvering (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]