User talk:ThePorgieBaggins98
Admin help possible harassment[edit]
 | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
A wiki user @Melcous is blindly accusing me of conflict of interest and editing all my pages and inserting issue tags into the pages (where there is no citation issues; the pages i made have about 10 separate citations) It's borderline harassment; I don't need this treatment. Nobody is paying me for edit Wikipedia. I am doing this for fun. I have an interest in New Hampshire; that's why I like to edit NH pages. Ghoyt98 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you feel harassed, but think of it this way: every single day, hundreds of people come along to Wikipedia to write about someone they know, or a company they have worked for, or whatever. Such people are often acting in good faith, unaware that it is against our guidelines - but it is, and we need to inform them of that. When an editor suspects that that is who they are dealing with, it is common to give them a templated notice, informing them about our COI policies, as Melcous did with you. I'm sorry that made you feel put upon, but it is not harassment.
- You feel that the citation template is unnecessary; Melcous feels that it is necessary. All you need to do is have a discussion with them on the article talk page, asking what their concerns are about the sourcing. Best Girth Summit (blether) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes ghoyt98, your pattern of editing is very common to what we see here all the time, and your username also links you to some of the subjects you have edited. I placed the standard COI template on your talk page and you deleted it without response, which was another red flag. All you need to do is respond: do you have a connection to any of the subjects you have edited about? (Note, the question is not about whether you are being paid - please read WP:COI which is broader than that). If you do, that is fine, you just need to declare it and then agree to follow wikipedia's policies on editing with a conflict of interest. (I should also note that I think you have misunderstood the "third party" template - it is not about how many citations an article has, but whether those sources are independent from the subject. And maintenance templates on an article are not a bad thing, they can attract other editors to help fix the issues.) Thank you Melcous (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Tagging pages for speedy deletion[edit]
Hello, ThePorgieBaggins98,
Articles should not be tagged for deletion because they were created by a blocked sockpuppet if other editors have worked on the article. For this criteria, the sockpuppet has to be the sole or primary editor. For articles that have existed for years, it is usually a better decision to use WP:PROD or nominate them at WP:AFD. If you have questions about the deletion processes on Wikipedia, please bring your concerns to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red[edit]
Hi there, ThePorgieBaggins98, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you registered as Ghoyt98 a couple of days ago but then changed your user name. It looks very much to me as if your biography of Sally Hirsh-Dickinson is about a person with whom you have close connections. Wikipedia strongly suggests you should avoid writing about close contacts as the results tend to be promotional. You can find further explanations at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you wish to continue writing biographies, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Maintenance tags[edit]
Hi ThePorgieBaggins98, I understand not wanting to have a maintenance tag on an article you’ve created, but please understand that the tag is there to flag the article for improvement and to make readers aware of potential underlying issues. It isn’t a reflection of Petrigno as a person, or of you as an editor. It can be unfair that some articles get more critical attention than others, but with over 6 million articles, there’s only so much attention to go around, and just because some articles slide by without scrutiny doesn’t mean all articles should slide by.
Maintenance tags should only be removed once the issue is addressed (which for Peter Petrigno, it has not), or if the person placing the tag hasn’t adequately explained the reasoning for the tag (which I’ve done at Talk:Peter Petrigno). Please don’t remove the tag without adding substantial independent third-party sources or justifying removal on the talk page. POLITANVM talk 23:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
admin intervention[edit]
I am looking for intervention on the page I created. Editors are debating with me about what is considered an independent source. I cited the New York Times, I considered that to be an independent source. Additionally, I cited government sources.. Please help.
| This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
ThePorgieBaggins98 (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Admins do not settle content disputes. If the discussion does not result in a consensus or you are otherwise unsatisfied, there are dispute resolution channels available. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
September 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
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.
A tag has been placed on Category:Far-right politicians in the United States requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_21#Category:American_conservatives. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
September 2021[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Southern New Hampshire University, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. We have had an issue on this page with the usage of "largest university in the nation" being cited with material that does not support this statement. The closest thing I have found in the citations you give is that it is one of the fastest growing and that "SNHU is one of the three biggest universities in the U.S., alongside Arizona State University and Western Governors University." The addition of this material makes me believe it could be added by those close to the University, so I advise you to please remember that working on articles where there is a conflict of interest is frowned upon. Garchy (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Category:Far-right politicians in the United States has been nominated for deletion[edit]
Category:Far-right politicians in the United States has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
October 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
Special event:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Peer review for critical race theory[edit]
Hi there, I've closed the peer review for critical race theory for inactivity. Although peer reviews are useful and serve as an important step in content creation and review, especially towards the goal of creating good articles and featured articles, the unfortunate reality is that the peer review process on Wikipedia is vastly under-resourced. At the time I write this comment, there are 76 open peer reviews dating back to April, 30 of which are unanswered. This is the primary reason I am closing your request: it's been about two months since you opened it and no one has commented since then, so it looks like there is not much interest in the peer review unfortunately.
Perhaps this is not a satisfying outcome to you, so I will try to explain what might have happened. Typically, the peer review process on Wikipedia works something like this: (1) an editor works substantially on an article; (2) submits it for peer review; (3) and responds to commenters' questions and concerns about content, prose, and sourcing. The nature of your peer review request is difficult to adequately address because (a) it is unlike other peer reviews where an editor submits an article they worked on and is the primary point-of-contact for discussing and implementing peer review edits; and (b) functionally, the peer review is asking for other editors/experts to help contribute to the article. Perhaps that conclusion is not straightforward, so let me explain: because you are asking for a review of the article as is (that is, there hasn't been any focused work on the page so far), it's simpler, practically speaking, for someone to just edit the page itself to fix whatever issues it may have, rather than go through a back-and-forth on the peer review page. And, if they do have concerns about how to best represent aspects of CRT, it would be more appropriate to discuss those on the article's talk page instead.
A functioning peer review would be instead when a user works on an article, thinks it's relatively complete, and makes themself available to back-and-forth with other editors on the article's content. Peer reviews are not necessarily for general requests to help improve an article, as anybody can do that already by simply editing the page! So, the intent of your peer review (to help improve the article on critical race theory) is very much in the green, it's rather that what you're asking for in the peer review doesn't need to be done in a peer review, or that peer reviews are not the right place to ask for the type of request you are making. A general 'call for attention' peer review is unlikely to get much interaction.
It is important for an expert to review an article, of course, because they know more about the topic, but there are relatively few experts in this area of scholarship who regularly edit Wikipedia, and they likely wouldn't see your peer review request. Most reviewers instead likely are not experts in the topic. As the Wikipedia:Peer review page says, Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader.
This means that reviewers likely would not contribute to a peer review as an 'expert' reviewer, but in other ways instead, so fulfilling the terms you set out in the peer review would be challenging. The page follows up with Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject
, which may be a better avenue to pursue for the kind of request you are making.
You are not in trouble or anything for submitting that peer review, it's not always straightforward what they are for and they differ significantly from peer reviews in the real world. Personally, I think it's good you made that request because of the topic's high recent visibility and importance. I just wanted to explain why the peer review was closed and you did not get the responses you were hoping for: in summary, no one responded, improvements to the page can be done simply by editing it, and it was an unusual peer review that asked for a level of expertise the project does not see frequently. I hope my explanation makes some sense to you, and if you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me. Zetana (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
December 2021 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
January 2022 Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
February with Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
March editathons[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
April Editathons from Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
May 2022 at Women in Red[edit]
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
June events from Women in Red[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red in July 2022[edit]
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red August 2022[edit]
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red in September 2022[edit]
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red October 2022[edit]
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red November 2022[edit]
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red in December 2022[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red January 2023[edit]
 
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red in February 2023[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red March 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red April 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red May 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red - June 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red July 2023[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red 8th Anniversary[edit]
|
|
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) 11:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red August 2023[edit]
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September 2023 at Women in Red[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red October 2023[edit]
See also
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red - November 2023[edit]
See also Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red December 2023[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red January 2024[edit]
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red February 2024[edit]
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red March 2024[edit]
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red April 2024[edit]
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red May 2024[edit]
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging