User talk:Marquardtika: Difference between revisions
→Rio Grande Foundation edits: partial block Tag: Reverted |
Undid revision 1221822559 by El C (talk) — apologies, submitted in error (wrong user) |
||
Line 720: | Line 720: | ||
:I do have access to the article, thanks, which is why I can see that the content you added is not fully supported by the source. I signed up for a user account and was able to see it. First off, it's editorializing to say "controversy" when the source doesn't use that word. See also [[WP:CSECTION]]. The article says "The Rio Grande Foundation, an Albuquerque-based free-market think tank with nonprofit status, was thrust into the race after the McCutcheon campaign cited its podcast, called Tipping Point NM, on the website — sanctuaryscott.com — branding Scott a liberal." It goes on to say "Paul Gessing, the foundation's president, described the website as 'very aggressive' and said it cited the nonprofit think tank to attack Scott. Basically, I wrote an op-ed ... saying that by our metrics, Representative Scott is a conservative." The article also says "Scott has consistently ranked among the most conservative members of the state House of Representatives in the Rio Grande Foundation's so-called Freedom Index system." And then "The op-ed, published in the Hobbs News-Sun, triggered a complaint against the nonprofit.The complaint, filed with the New Mexico Department of Justice by Gina George of Las Cruces, contends Gessing 'appeared to have endorsed a political candidate' in possible violation of the stipulations set by the Internal Revenue Service for 501©(3) organizations." Nothing appears to have come from this complaint. Who is Gina George? Why should we care that she filed a complaint that resulted in nothing? This whole thing seems like a case of [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. If something comes of this brouhaha it could be worth including. But it looks to me like the Rio Grande Foundation is tangentially related to a Republican primary battle. [[User:Marquardtika|Marquardtika]] ([[User talk:Marquardtika#top|talk]]) |
:I do have access to the article, thanks, which is why I can see that the content you added is not fully supported by the source. I signed up for a user account and was able to see it. First off, it's editorializing to say "controversy" when the source doesn't use that word. See also [[WP:CSECTION]]. The article says "The Rio Grande Foundation, an Albuquerque-based free-market think tank with nonprofit status, was thrust into the race after the McCutcheon campaign cited its podcast, called Tipping Point NM, on the website — sanctuaryscott.com — branding Scott a liberal." It goes on to say "Paul Gessing, the foundation's president, described the website as 'very aggressive' and said it cited the nonprofit think tank to attack Scott. Basically, I wrote an op-ed ... saying that by our metrics, Representative Scott is a conservative." The article also says "Scott has consistently ranked among the most conservative members of the state House of Representatives in the Rio Grande Foundation's so-called Freedom Index system." And then "The op-ed, published in the Hobbs News-Sun, triggered a complaint against the nonprofit.The complaint, filed with the New Mexico Department of Justice by Gina George of Las Cruces, contends Gessing 'appeared to have endorsed a political candidate' in possible violation of the stipulations set by the Internal Revenue Service for 501©(3) organizations." Nothing appears to have come from this complaint. Who is Gina George? Why should we care that she filed a complaint that resulted in nothing? This whole thing seems like a case of [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. If something comes of this brouhaha it could be worth including. But it looks to me like the Rio Grande Foundation is tangentially related to a Republican primary battle. [[User:Marquardtika|Marquardtika]] ([[User talk:Marquardtika#top|talk]]) |
||
==Partial block== |
|||
<div class="user-block uw-pblock" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Partial blocks|blocked]]''' from editing '''[[Ginni Thomas]]''' for a period of '''one month''' for [[WP:EW|edit warring]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 05:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-pblock --> |
Revision as of 05:38, 2 May 2024
The Signpost: 20 February 2023
- In the media: Arbitrators open case after article alleges Wikipedia "intentionally distorts" Holocaust coverage
- Disinformation report: The "largest con in corporate history"?
- Tips and tricks: All about writing at DYK
- Featured content: Eden, lost.
- Gallery: Love is in the air
- From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago: Let's (not) delete the Main Page!
- Humour: The RfA Candidate's Song
Women in Red March 2023
![]()
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Thanks for your work on the Issue One page
Hi Marquardtika, I just wanted to say a quick thank you for your edits to the Issue One article earlier this week. I have a COI as I work for Issue One, but I've been hoping an uninvolved editor like yourself might take a look at the proposed edits I've posted on the Issue One Talk page. If you're able to continue making changes as you see fit, I would really appreciate it. I've proposed edits to the History and Organization sections. Thank you again! AR at Issue One (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 March 2023
- News and notes: What's going on with the Wikimedia Endowment?
- Technology report: Second flight of the Soviet space bears: Testing ChatGPT's accuracy
- In the media: What should Wikipedia do? Publish Russian propaganda? Be less woke? Cover the Holocaust in Poland differently?
- Featured content: In which over two-thirds of the featured articles section needs to be copied over to WikiProject Military History's newsletter
- Recent research: "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust" in Poland and "self-focus bias" in coverage of global events
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
The Signpost: 20 March 2023
- News and notes: Wikimania submissions deadline looms, Russian government after our lucky charms, AI woes nix CNET from RS slate
- Eyewitness: Three more stories from Ukrainian Wikimedians
- In the media: Paid editing, plagiarism payouts, proponents of a ploy, and people peeved at perceived preferences
- Featured content: Way too many featured articles
- Interview: 228/2/1: the inside scoop on Aoidh's RfA
- Traffic report: Who died? Who won? Who lost?
Women in Red April 2023
![]()
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 03 April 2023
- From the editor: Some long-overdue retractions
- News and notes: Sounding out, a universal code of conduct, and dealing with AI
- Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" case is ongoing
- Featured content: Hail, poetry! Thou heav'n-born maid
- Recent research: Language bias: Wikipedia captures at least the "silhouette of the elephant", unlike ChatGPT
- From the archives: April Fools' through the ages
- Disinformation report: Sus socks support suits, seems systemic
The Signpost: 26 April 2023
- News and notes: Staff departures at Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo hands in the bits, and graphs' zeppelin burns
- In the media: Contested truth claims in Wikipedia
- Obituary: Remembering David "DGG" Goodman
- Arbitration report: Holocaust in Poland, Jimbo in the hot seat, and a desysopping
- Special report: Signpost statistics between years 2005 and 2022
- News from the WMF: Collective planning with the Wikimedia Foundation
- Featured content: In which we described the featured articles in rhyme again
- From the archives: April Fools' through the ages, part two
- Humour: The law of hats
- Traffic report: Long live machine, the future supreme
Women in Red May 2023
![]()
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Nomination of Sabato's Crystal Ball for deletion
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabato's Crystal Ball until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 8 May 2023
- News and notes: New legal "deVLOPments" in the EU
- In the media: Vivek's smelly socks, online safety, and politics
- Recent research: Gender, race and notability in deletion discussions
- Featured content: I wrote a poem for each article, I found rhymes for all the lists; My first featured picture of this year now finally exists!
- Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" approaches conclusion
- News from the WMF: Planning together with the Wikimedia Foundation
The Signpost: 22 May 2023
- In the media: History, propaganda and censorship
- Arbitration report: Final decision in "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland"
- Featured content: A very musical week for featured articles
- Traffic report: Coronation, chatbot, celebs
Women in Red - June 2023
![]()
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 5 June 2023
- News and notes: WMRU director forks new 'pedia, birds flap in top '22 piccy, WMF weighs in on Indian gov's map axe plea
- Featured content: Poetry under pressure
- Traffic report: Celebs, controversies and a chatbot in the public eye
The Signpost: 19 June 2023
- News and notes: WMF Terms of Use now in force, new Creative Commons licensing
- Featured content: Content, featured
- Recent research: Hoaxers prefer currently-popular topics
Women in Red July 2023
![]()
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 3 July 2023
- Disinformation report: Imploded submersible outfit foiled trying to sing own praises on Wikipedia
- Featured content: Incensed
- Traffic report: Are you afraid of spiders? Arnold? The Idol? ChatGPT?
Mónica Ramírez Almadani moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Mónica Ramírez Almadani. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Let'srun (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 July 2023
- In the media: Tentacles of Emirates plot attempt to ensnare Wikipedia
- Tips and tricks: What automation can do for you (and your WikiProject)
- Featured content: Scrollin', scrollin', scrollin', keep those readers scrollin', got to keep on scrollin', Rawhide!
- Traffic report: The Idol becomes the Master
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
![]() |
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap! |
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Rebecca C. Lutzko moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Rebecca C. Lutzko. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Let'srun (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2023
![]()
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 1 August 2023
- News and notes: City officials attempt to doxx Wikipedians, Ruwiki founder banned, WMF launches Mastodon server
- In the media: Truth, AI, bull from politicians, and climate change
- Disinformation report: Hot climate, hot hit, hot money, hot news hot off the presses!
- Tips and tricks: Citation tools for dummies!
- In focus: Journals cited by Wikipedia
- Opinion: Are global bans the last step?
- Featured content: Featured Content, 1 to 15 July
- Traffic report: Come on Oppie, let's go party
As to Elissa Slotkin govtrack record
I saw you deleted it because there was no other coverages of it. Although it do have WP:OR problem if no other sources covered it, I find it was covered by two other sources 1: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/09/22/elissa-slotkin-paul-junge-fact-check/5854179002/ from Detroit Free Press 2: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/21/paul-junge/fact-checking-rep-elissa-slotkins-record-bipartisa/#sources from FactCheck.org Do you think those two sources give it enough notability to be added back? If you think so, may I ask you to add it back since it is fully protected. 24.227.255.90 (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Marquardtika and 24.227.255.90: I replied regarding this at Talk:Elissa Slotkin which I think could use your input. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk)
The Signpost: 15 August 2023
- News and notes: Dude, Where's My Donations? Wikimedia Foundation announces another million in grants for non-Wikimedia-related projects
- Tips and tricks: How to find images for your articles, check their copyright, upload them, and restore them
- Cobwebs: Getting serious about writing
- Serendipity: Why I stopped taking photographs almost altogether
- Featured content: Barbenheimer confirmed
- Traffic report: 'Cause today it just goes with the fashion
September 2023 at Women in Red
![]()
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Victuallers (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 31 August 2023
- From the editor: Beta version of signpost.news now online
- News and notes: You like RecentChanges?
- In the media: Taking it sleazy
- Recent research: The five barriers that impede "stitching" collaboration between Commons and Wikipedia
- Draftspace: Bad Jokes and Other Draftspace Novelties
- Humour: The Dehumourification Plan
- Traffic report: Raise your drinking glass, here's to yesterday
The Signpost: 16 September 2023
- In the media: "Just flirting", going Dutch and Shapps for the defence?
- Obituary: Nosebagbear
- Featured content: Catching up
- Traffic report: Some of it's magic, some of it's tragic
Women in Red October 2023
![]()
See also
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 3 October 2023
- News and notes: Wikimedia Endowment financial statement published
- Recent research: Readers prefer ChatGPT over Wikipedia; concerns about limiting "anyone can edit" principle "may be overstated"
- Featured content: By your logic,
- Poetry: "The Sight"
The Signpost: 23 October 2023
- News and notes: Where have all the administrators gone?
- In the media: Thirst traps, the fastest loading sites on the web, and the original collaborative writing
- Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to know how to restore images to make massive improvements
- Featured content: Yo, ho! Blow the man down!
- Traffic report: The calm and the storm
- News from Diff: Sawtpedia: Giving a Voice to Wikipedia Using QR Codes
Women in Red - November 2023
![]()
See also Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 6 November 2023
- Arbitration report: Admin bewilderingly unmasks self as sockpuppet of other admin who was extremely banned in 2015
- In the media: UK shadow chancellor accused of ripping off WP articles for book, Wikipedians accused of being dicks by a rich man
- Opinion: An open letter to Elon Musk
- WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2023
- News from Wiki Ed: Equity lists on Wikipedia
- Recent research: How English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades
- Featured content: Like putting a golf course in a historic site.
- Traffic report: Cricket jumpscare
November 2023
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I made a minor typographical edit to Joe Manchin and marked it as minor. Per the link you included above, 92.1% of my major edits have a summary. Looks like an A average! Marquardtika (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi. You have a point. But if you don't provide an edit summary to any edit it's your fault if it gets reverted. It can be confusing to new Wikipedians. Everyone can revert an edit if it does not have an edit summary. Most of your edits have an edit summary, but the edit on Joe Manchin did not have an edit summary. As small and minor as the edit is, it is important to always provide an edit summary, H:FIES. Thank You. MrFlyingPies23 (Talk?) | (Contrib) 22:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I made a minor typographical edit to Joe Manchin and marked it as minor. Per the link you included above, 92.1% of my major edits have a summary. Looks like an A average! Marquardtika (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Reversion of edits on Russell J. Rickford
Hey there. I just wanted to comment on your reversion of an edit on the Russell J. Rickford article. I'm assuming you made the same mistake as me and thought "that's an outlandish claim". However, in this case the subject of the article actually did call the Hamas attack "exhilarating". I'm going to go through the article and make sure it stands up to scrutiny now, but I just wanted to leave a comment about using appropriate edit warnings when reverting content like that. Otherwise it just incites the person to come back and edit the page again, making the same mistake.
Side note in case you weren't aware of it, that article was eligible for WP:ARBECR as a topic related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. It has now been protected. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 04:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 November 2023
- In the media: Propaganda and photos, lunatics and a lunar backup
- News and notes: Update on Wikimedia's financial health
- Traffic report: If it bleeds, it leads
- Recent research: Canceling disputes as the real function of ArbCom
- Wikimania: Wikimania 2024 scholarships
Women in Red December 2023
![]()
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
David S. Leibowitz
Hello. I noticed one of my edits for David S. Leibowitz was reverted by yourself. The reason put was “socking”. Can you explain the revert please? Thank you for your time
202zone (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, you are quite clearly a sock of of MIAJudges. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MIAJudges. Marquardtika (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 December 2023
- In the media: Turmoil on Hebrew Wikipedia, grave dancing, Olga's impact and inspiring Bhutanese nuns
- Disinformation report: "Wikipedia and the assault on history"
- Comix: Bold comics for a new age
- Essay: I am going to die
- Featured content: Real gangsters move in silence
- Traffic report: And it's hard to watch some cricket, in the cold November Rain
- Humour: Mandy Rice-Davies Applies
Federal Circuit is a proper noun
The Federal Circuit is the name of a specific court, like the First Circuit or the District of Columbia Circuit, and is therefore a proper noun and always capitalized. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- @BD2412: Ah, my bad! Thanks for the note. Marquardtika (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 December 2023
- Special report: Did the Chinese Communist Party send astroturfers to sabotage a hacktivist's Wikipedia article?
- News and notes: The Italian Public Domain wars continue, Wikimedia RU set to dissolve, and a recap of WLM 2023
- In the media: Consider the humble fork
- Discussion report: Arabic Wikipedia blackout; Wikimedians discuss SpongeBob, copyrights, and AI
- In focus: Liquidation of Wikimedia RU
- Technology report: Dark mode is coming
- Recent research: "LLMs Know More, Hallucinate Less" with Wikidata
- Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols
- Comix: Lollus lmaois 200C tincture
- Crossword: when the crossword is sus
- Traffic report: What's the big deal? I'm an animal!
- From the editor: A piccy iz worth OVAR 9000!!!11oneone! wordz ^_^
- Humour: Guess the joke contest
Women in Red January 2024
![]() ![]()
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 10 January 2024
- From the editor: NINETEEN MORE YEARS! NINETEEN MORE YEARS!
- Special report: Public Domain Day 2024
- Technology report: Wikipedia: A Multigenerational Pursuit
- News and notes: In other news ... see ya in court!
- WikiProject report: WikiProjects Israel and Palestine
- Obituary: Anthony Bradbury
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2023
- Comix: Conflict resolution
Nomination of Christopher Caldwell (government official) for deletion
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Caldwell (government official) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red February 2024
![]()
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 31 January 2024
- News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail
- Opinion: Until it happens to you
- Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry
- Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]"
- Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down
The Signpost: 13 February 2024
- News and notes: Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers
- Disinformation report: How low can the scammers go?
- Serendipity: Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi?
- Traffic report: Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football
- Crossword: Our crossword to bear
- Comix: Strongly
Invitation to join New pages patrol
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Wikipedia_New_page_reviewer.svg/175px-Wikipedia_New_page_reviewer.svg.png)
Hello Marquardtika!
- The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
- We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
- Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
- Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
- If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red March 2024
![]()
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 2 March 2024
- News and notes: Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin inadvertently caught in the net"
- Recent research: Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias"
- In the media: The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV, and the Foundation's CTO goes on record
- Obituary: Vami_IV
- Traffic report: Supervalentinefilmbowlday
- WikiCup report: High-scoring WikiCup first round comes to a close
The Signpost: 29 March 2024
- Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year
- Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors
- Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune
- Humour: Letters from the editors
- Comix: Layout issue
Women in Red April 2024
![]()
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Invitation to the RfC on the talk page of Elissa Slotkin
Recently there has been a new RfC on the talk page of Elissa Slotkin aiming at resolving a dispute here, but it does not attract enough engagement to form a consensus, Since you have edited it recently, could you please come here to help to form a consensus? 128.194.2.73 (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2024
- In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV
- News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law
- WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)
- Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users
- Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Women in Red May 2024
![]()
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Rio Grande Foundation edits
Edits to the Rio Grande Foundation were reverted. Reason cited was "not an accurate summary of source."
Please see the full cited source article. The full article from The Santa Fe New Mexican is not available unless user is subscribed. [1]
Edit was: "In 2024, Rio Grande Foundation President Paul Gessing engaged the Foundation in the controversy surrounding a partisan primary election. Gessing authored an op-ed that defended Representative Larry Scott's conservative record against attacks from his opponent, Steve McCutcheon. This action led to a formal complaint alleging that Gessing's public comments could be seen as a partisan endorsement, potentially violating the nonpartisan status required of 501(c)(3) organizations." Pbrenner91 (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I do have access to the article, thanks, which is why I can see that the content you added is not fully supported by the source. I signed up for a user account and was able to see it. First off, it's editorializing to say "controversy" when the source doesn't use that word. See also WP:CSECTION. The article says "The Rio Grande Foundation, an Albuquerque-based free-market think tank with nonprofit status, was thrust into the race after the McCutcheon campaign cited its podcast, called Tipping Point NM, on the website — sanctuaryscott.com — branding Scott a liberal." It goes on to say "Paul Gessing, the foundation's president, described the website as 'very aggressive' and said it cited the nonprofit think tank to attack Scott. Basically, I wrote an op-ed ... saying that by our metrics, Representative Scott is a conservative." The article also says "Scott has consistently ranked among the most conservative members of the state House of Representatives in the Rio Grande Foundation's so-called Freedom Index system." And then "The op-ed, published in the Hobbs News-Sun, triggered a complaint against the nonprofit.The complaint, filed with the New Mexico Department of Justice by Gina George of Las Cruces, contends Gessing 'appeared to have endorsed a political candidate' in possible violation of the stipulations set by the Internal Revenue Service for 501©(3) organizations." Nothing appears to have come from this complaint. Who is Gina George? Why should we care that she filed a complaint that resulted in nothing? This whole thing seems like a case of WP:NOTNEWS. If something comes of this brouhaha it could be worth including. But it looks to me like the Rio Grande Foundation is tangentially related to a Republican primary battle. Marquardtika (talk)