Hello, Mn06hithere227, 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 Mark Twain School for the Gifted and Talented 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! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very kindly!
- I will take a look at your link on how to properly cite sources. Thanks for posting it.
- Mn06hithere227 ( talk) 20:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 13:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. This is very good of you to point out to me. I should indeed have said where I had gotten it from. Thank you for the info and link. Mn06hithere227 ( talk) 18:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The "article" you cite was an opinion piece, and not a factual news article. There is a significant problem with it, since Prop 1A which authorized the system also specified a route. So, there WAS NO option of changing the route without authorizing legislation -- which the "article" never mentioned. The "offer" from the other rail company after Prop 1A was always fraudulent.
Also, the route into the CV from the south was always a MAJOR problem, and likely would have required a many miles-long tunnel if it didn't take the "detour" into high desert, and tunneling under the pass would have rivaled the long, expensive tunnels under the Swiss Alps. Thus, saying that there is a cheaper and easier solution is just not supported by the facts.
Also, citing the Moroccan HSR route/costs is completely irrelevant to CAHSR, and it leaves a false impression. It deserves NO PLACE in this article.
Lastly, if this is to be cited at all, it should go in History, since this is of only historical note. Robert92107 ( talk) 02:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment.
- It's a great piece. Perhaps someone can summarize it better than myself. I do think it should be cited.
-
Mn06hithere227 (
talk) 04:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- It was also written by someone who always was opposed to the project and has always said so in print; there is also some extensive discussion of this author in the article Talk page. As I pointed out above, there are major factual errors and omissions in it, so it is deliberately biased. If cited, it should only go in History, since it has nothing to do with the reality of the project. I would NOT by any means characterize it as "great"!
Robert92107 (
talk) 17:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that this author has already been discussed on the talk page. I will not put anything by this author in the article in the future. Mn06hithere227 ( talk) 02:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- It was also written by someone who always was opposed to the project and has always said so in print; there is also some extensive discussion of this author in the article Talk page. As I pointed out above, there are major factual errors and omissions in it, so it is deliberately biased. If cited, it should only go in History, since it has nothing to do with the reality of the project. I would NOT by any means characterize it as "great"!
Robert92107 (
talk) 17:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)