User talk:AAPRM

Welcome!

Hello, AAPRM, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page GE 25-ton switcher did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, AAPRM. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Fox River Trolley Museum, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize for making this mistake, as I was not aware of this policy because I am new to WP. I am viewing this issue from an outside standpoint, and only wish to help for more information to be out on WP. I will not promote anything my museum does, and I apologize again for this mistake. Thank you very much for informing me of this, and I will continue to make the FRTM better while being conscious to not link the museum website or have a biased point of view.

Thank you,

AAPRM AAPRM (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I am very determined to write with an outside point of view, however, I believe that I can provide factual and current information for the encyclopedia by being a part of the museum.

Thank you,

AAPRM AAPRM (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are editing in good faith, but trying to write about an organization you are directly linked with without breaking policy is very difficult and I would not recommend it. I'm going to point to a few examples in the current revision, and apologize in advance for the number of links to policy pages I'm going to throw at you:

"If you would like to donate toward the continued repair of many of these cars, visit the museum's website." This is a violation of WP:SOAP. Yes, I recognize this isn't a for-profit effort, but the rule still applies. Directly asking readers to visit a link to donate is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. You could say "the museum launched a donation campaign to support the repairs" because that is discussing the situation objectively. In general, articles should not be using the word "you" outside of quotations. We shouldn't be directly saying things to readers.
"The addition in 2003 added 0.4 miles to the track length, and added what many consider the most scenic part of the trolley ride." WP:WEASEL. If this is true, you need to cite a source that substantiates this claim. I could edit an article about a car and say "many people consider this the fanciest car ever made". If I had no source, that would be just my word with no other evidence to support it. A core part of Wikipedia is verifiability. That means if someone reads something in an article, they can find a source that backs that information. You're certainly entitled to think it's the most scenic part of the ride, or the worst part of any trolley ride ever, or whatever other opinion you wish to have. But Wikipedia deals in what reliable sources say, not what we think.
"This sad chapter in the museum's history did, however, attract the attention of many well-wishers." This is editorializing. Wikipedia articles cover events objectively. This is a difference between Wikipedia and many other sources of information. A formal encyclopedic tone must be maintained.
"This also prompted over 400 people to donate over $50,000 altogether, and glass companies Window Repair Guy and Chicago Window and Door Solutions to donate glass to help with the repair of many of the cars damaged on July 8th." It's not appropriate to link websites like this, per our policy on external links.
Most of the article has no sources to back it up. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources independent of the subject have to say. The entire "Museum Main Line" section has no sources. How are we to know what you wrote is true? I'm not accusing you of lying, but I live in Connecticut and I've never been to the Fox River Trolley Museum. How am I to know if what's there is true or if someone just made it all up? That's where sources come in. That means anyone can check the sources in an article to verify its contents. For example, I wrote Cedar Hill Yard, and you'll see it's filled with citations for almost everything. That means someone who has never been to the yard can look at the sources and see they verify what I wrote.

Editors generally frown upon editors with a conflict of interest violating that COI and editing articles they have a personal connection to. Not everyone will be as patient and lenient as I am being with you right now. I'm giving you a chance to learn because I think you're genuinely trying to do the right thing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this information, and I change this immediately. AAPRM (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AAPRM, Trainsandotherthings asked me to pop in and have a look at this situation as I have a little bit of experience dealing with editors who have conflicts of interest. I can see that you're acting in good faith, and we welcome people who want to contribute in all kinds of ways, but to be honest with you aside from the content issues he identified above, I'm not sure the article meets our guideline for notability. Usually we want to see 2-4 substantial sources about a topic - in this case, the topic being the museum - before we can justify having an article. What I see here is a lot of citations to the museum's website and that's about it. Do you know if any external sources - for example, magazines or books - have written any pieces about the museum? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re notability, I did find this newspaper article which was distributed by the Associated Press which clears the bar for significant coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a week looking for these, but the majority of the sources were unreliable being parent magazines, commercials, or small newspapers with no relevant information. Thank you for this link, and I will continue looking for reliable sources over the next weeks. AAPRM (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:World Championship Old-Time Piano Playing Contest and Festival

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:World Championship Old-Time Piano Playing Contest and Festival, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]