User talk:ProfGray: Difference between revisions

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hi ProfGray, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! User:ProfGray (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Braver Angels, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a co-founder of Braver Angels designed their Red/Blue political depolarization workshops based on couples therapy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Braver Angels. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Braver Angels), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ProfGray, the closure of this review as a failed GAN looks good to me. I thought it was best to post directly to your talk page, rather than to the review page after you'd completed the closure. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help! ProfGray (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC) ProfGray (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for humouring me in this rabbit hole @ProfGray. I started out just being passingly interested in this. Then upon finding this series of Wiki pages that - and I say this with ample examples - were written with a greatly-researched depth on the slave trade aspects, but a broad indifference, or even combative tone, to acknowledging any other aspects of these people's other WP:significant views. It's a controversial topic that deserves care, and I'm saddened that I am spending half of my comments attempting to dispel aspersions about my character, or the type of source Phillips (1953) is (i.e. it is not self-published/unpublished (it is published by National Museums Liverpool), not primary, etc...).

I appreciate that you are taking the care to assess the statements for their merit independently, even if this source (Phillips, 1953) is not a fully independent source of the subject matter. In some instances, that is probably of benefit! I certainly won't take Phillips' word that "the Dawsons were a well-respected family" etc... but I think I can believe him when he says "many sources confuse this, but it was Baker and Co. up until after the Carnatic, at which point it became Baker and Dawson" - which tracks with other sources as well beyond being completely sensible within-text.

It's much appreciated that someone else actually looked at this document and considered it, rather than just attacking it as illegitimate - and this after I was invited by said person to contribute to the article based on this document... I am genuinely just trying to be a good scholar here, and it's greatly appreciated to be treated with a belief that I am acting in good faith given the knee-jerk responses of most others, and the increasing libel of some... Cheers -- Crawdaunt (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I love the Phillips manuscript and I wish we had more from my family. As a scholar (though in a different field than you), it took me some time to adjust to WP standards. We aren't looking for good scholarship, at least not in the sense that it would cross into Wikipedia:No original research. If you actually found an error with, say, John vs James, you could give the info to one of the published historians and maybe they would publish a research note or correction that could then be used in Wikipedia. Or they might question the validity of James on the cover page alone. Anyway, does that make sense?

FWIW, I'd encourage you to withdraw the RM and the AN/I stuff. It's just not worth it and it detracts from how you come across ProfGray (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Indeed I've got the WP:OR concept down, thus why I'm restricting many of these discussions to Talk pages. That's precisely where WP:OR can be raised to help make sense of conflicting info like found in Williams, Behrendt, Pope, Postigo, and Phillips. I'm not sure I agree that "because it says it only once, it doesn't count." If that were true, we'd discount Williams (1897), and ignore the legitimate concern of citogenesis that seemingly stems from Williams as the oldest source being cited in these circles.

• RFC: I kinda got sucked into Desertarun's style without realizing there is a better classifier for what I was hoping to achieve. So now with WP:RFC, I hope the page will see more reasoned debate without stakes behind it. Regardless, I leave my detailed notes (ramblings) that someone two years down the line could take on board if they choose.

Would you suggest to Desertarun that he uses RFC for Peter Baker also?

• AN/I I appreciate seeming a bit hysterical does me no favours, but there is a seriousness to Desertarun's conduct that I genuinely believe deserves AN/I. When someone casts aspersions, it is not merely the indignance, but the lasting damage that it causes to the framing of the debate. If someone starts by saying a source is "primary", it takes me repeating myself umpteen times before someone goes "oh... wait yeah no having a COI doesn't make it primary, that's a different thing." Likewise for WP:SPS, etc... The true damage that Desertarun has done here is, by continuously attacking me, they've made it impossible to consider the merits of the content at hand.

It is depressing that self-declaring a COI at Wikipedia makes one untrustable, which is not Wikipedia's intent behind their WP:COI policy. I will continue to do so in the future if it is relevant, but it seems a double standard that a user like Desertarun that practically invents a DAB and writes multiple articles using it is somehow given a free pass for any concern of COI.

All that said, thanks again for your patience and interest. You're the best kind of Wiki editor: able to balance being nice and also being neutral. It's a skill! -- Crawdaunt (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought (and one I'd prefer a user like yourself to add if you are convinced by my argument): because WP:OR concerns would apply to this seeming discovery of John Dawson vs. James Dawson, and because there is a genuine second notable John Dawson slave trader (Pope, 2007), could we at least DAB two different John Dawson articles?

At a minimum, two "John Dawson" pages would disambiguate "merchant" slave trader John Dawson (?-1812) father of Frederik and someone who commissioned 50 vessels of slaves (Pope 2007), and "John Baker Dawson" from Williams 1897 who was captain of Mentor. Heck... the DABs could be "John Dawson (-1812)" and "Captain J. Dawson (1752-1824)" to avoid commiting to either, which honestly seems appropriate given the honourific "Captain" seems to be used throughout. The purpose of a DAB isn't to judge a character, it's to make it easier to find the right article. "Capt J. Dawson" would be the most consistent with how each of these texts reference Dawson, and avoid the John vs. James debate per titling altogether. Then the page itself could just mention the John vs. James thing, where I feel there's credible uncertainty.

I've also just realized one more striking note in Phillips: Phillips (1953) cites Gomer Williams (1897) on pg31. I originally misread this as "Gomez." But Phillips, knowing of Williams 1897, nonetheless titled it "James Dawson" and wrote elsewhere "There are many conflicting stories..." on pg16 regarding the accounts of Capt. J. Dawson. So HS Phillips was well aware of Williams (1897), and yet titled this collection with "James Dawson" on the title page pretty unambiguously. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Crawdaunt. First of all, thank you for appreciating my efforts to be both NPOV and kind. Second, thanks for withdrawing the RM for James, I think that's the best approach.

Third, I advise you to stop writing, even in Talk pages, about DAB and Renames for Baker, Dawson, and any other slave trader articles. I feel that you have a fine scholarly enthusiasm for getting things right, but every time you talk about DAB (and article names) you are going to come across as pushing exactly in line with your COI. If you persist, I suspect you will get some admin reaction, like a bann on editing the pages altogeiher. As it stands now, you can edit some useful sections of Peter Baker and this will help improve his biography here. I know this advice is not easy to take, but even so, I mean it for your own sake. I wish you the best. ProfGray (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll take that advice. If I do make any future contributions, it will be solely to add references that help reinforce claims relying somewhat heavily on Phillips (1953), even if Liverpool Echo (1961) currently substantiates many pertinent ones, and already-existing Wikis validate the importance/significant view aspect of others. Those wikis likely have references that would be useful, and if there's a concern of content accuracy, I'd like to address it. I'll stay off talk pages from hereon - my last post was really my last. I feel like I've now discovered far more than can be digested in one cursory read of a Talk page, so further additions are not productive. It needs someone to second (and third) the desire for corrections.

I will continue the AN/I for now. I believe it is a matter of subversive conduct at heart. But your view is noted, I appreciate it, and I'll consider it going forward. If I can make one last request, if you agree that Phillips (1953) is not a primary source (right?[1]), could you please remove the "Primary" tag on Peter Baker (slave trader) that Desertarun added to the main page? It's another example of how their conduct attempts to bias the incoming reader to a POV, and is part of the numerous examples of conduct violations relevant to my concern.

I mean, I was shocked to see just how pervasive their edits with this DAB go, with some 13+ articles written by Desertarun just on 1800s slave traders alone in defiance of more common DABs. See: here. Roman Spinner brought this up. There's a slight precedent for this DAB: ex. Thomas_Walker_(slave_trader) was DAB'd like this by TheAnome in 2013. But beyond this one example, all these DABs pre-2021 come from Desertarun, and then user Leutha wrote a couple more. To my point, Desertarun made these pages with a very clear and arguably biased POV, and is now doing things like adding incorrect notices of concern, casting inaccurate aspersions about sources, and making repeated personal attacks. I view the Baker article as an opportunity for referendum on Desertarun articles, which aren't wrong per se, but should clearly be subject to more than a piecemeal review for NPOV. I'd genuinely welcome the DAB "(slave trader)" being used more broadly because "(merchant)" or "(sailor)" is kind of offensive TBH. But if it's not, then it's not vey Wiki-like to let one arguably biased editor colour the perceptions of readers for an entire slew of biographical articles.

Will unfollow the pages to avoid temptation. Keeping notifications here. Best, and thanks again. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I can remove the Primary tag, but I would do that after there's no more info that relies solely on Phillips 1953 (due to RS concerns). FWIW, I disagree about Desertarun -- for example, it isn't "casting aspersions" to downgrade or criticize a source (as opposed to a person), it isn't a clear POV bias to think that "slave trader" is an encyclopedic DAB, and it is inappropriate to modify (or discuss) a single article as a "referendum" on a single editor's editing. For sure, I know it can be bothersome and upsetting when somebody adds tags and cites WP policies against my editing, but I'm not sure their position on an editorial question (such as DAB) is properly characterized as a "POV" -- usually a POV is like taking sides on a contentious issue, not an editorial decision like this. Best wishes, hang in there, ProfGray (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree there's a WP:RS concern that's valid. Wouldn't "more citation needed" be more appropriate then? The concern is WP:RS, not WP:PRIMARY. The COI concern per WP:RS is a very different one from WP:Primary. COI concerns occur often for historical documents, or for biographical pages/corporations. Primary concerns are much more disqualifying, as they imply WP:SPS, etc... -- Crawdaunt (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In terms of disqualifying, not RS is a severe problem and disqualifies most of the info from Phillips. Nonetheless,

Citation needed -- useful idea, if we think some corroborating evidence might be found. I made a few edits and used that at least once. But I'd prefer that you either remove all text that relies on Phillips 1953, else let me know what you think can be kept. It's too hard to figure out what you added from Phillips that isn't in the other sources. ProfGray (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found numerous external references that source almost everything I added previously from Phillips. It appears some of the colour/extended detail from Phillips' accounts was likely from the book: History of the Royal and Ancient Toxteth Park, Robert Griffiths with information from G. H. Parry. 1907. I could find further book sources backing up various points, and database primary sources that I cited to confirm evidence of transitioning names of companies and approximate dates of activity, but these do still rely on Phillips (1953) to more easily make sense of them, and so keeping both references would be better. There are also a fair few minor date disagreements among ship registers, ship register websites, Phillips (1953), etc... that don't affect the substance of the content, but just the precise timings of when shipbuilding-relevant things happened (when ships were built/launched, when companies were active). In places where I was unable to find a clear reference, but which felt like content that was fair to remain, I added a ^{[citation needed]} tag and explained the CN, and provided a reasoning behind keeping the sentence (e.g. Barton likely to be Thomas Barton). -- Crawdaunt (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I'm curious about ship registers. Aren't these primary sources? Isn't it WP:OR to extract (and interpret) data and cite them? I noticed their use on some other articles about the ships.

I cut down the Phillips citations to 7, you've now increased it to 12. This is a mistake, in my view, because it is not a reliable source and it's usage should be cut down as much as possible, if not completely eliminated.

My two cents: Although I realize you felt deeply offended by Desertarun, I would kindly suggest that you re-imagine him as an ally and collaborator in the writing of the Baker bio and related articles. He cares about the topic and wants it to be encyclopedic. Without his buy-in, the article will continue to have a cautionary tag (Primary or otherwise) as long as Phillips is used or in-depth details are added that alter the article's Proportions. If you are willing, then address the use of Phillips in the Talk section "Primary source," which he appropriately created to back up the tag. Do not argue about primary vs secondary. Do not address the user (e.g., by "you" or username) only discuss the use of the source. Concede that other sources are needed for nearly everything in Phillips 1953. Ask if and when it is acceptable to retain the Phillips citation, for instance, while searching for an RS corroboration or (as you say above) to enable readers to more easily make sense of the information. In other words, propose a very small number of uses and see if you can get consensus (buy-in) on those uses.

Also -- be short and simple. Start with 3-4 sentences, NOT longer. Avoid linking and policy terms.

I hope this advice is useful. It's based on my WP collaboration skills and some research I've read about disputes (e.g., don't address the user). ProfGray (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep them in mind for the future. My tendency as an academic is to cite and explain fully, and this is appreciated by some, but not others. That said, I'm also just recusing myself from these Wiki pages any further, unless someone specifically requests me to come in for comment. I am happy to let the pages sort themselves out from here.

At the core, I really believe Desertarun has a vested interest in rightgreatwrongs here. They wrote a dozen-plus articles in 2020 with politically-charged DABs that weighted heavily on a sole significant view, built them up, then nominated them for front page highlighting. If that's not an attempt to use Wikipedia to "ride the crest of the wave", I don't know what is. It's regrettable my conduct distracted from that core concern.

Per primary sources: this is something I'd seen done for other ship articles. Citing of ship registers (which are just lists) is similarly a primary source, and Loyd's register is used all over these pages. Phillips (1953) explains the sequential order of company inheritance, and these are cited solely for the existence of those companies. If you think they're not helpful, please remove them. Again, thanks for volunteering to mediate, the constructive feedback, and for engaging respectfully. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To offer a diff perspective on Desertarun, look at the rightgreatwrongs examples, which are specific, tendentious, and lack sources. Don't forget the ending of that section: "If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do..." How is it tendentious to write about the slave trade? How is (slave trader) a "politically-charged" phrase when everybody agrees that it's wrong, there's no opposing POV, it's not a contentious issue. And for our culture, it's the most significant aspect of people like Peter Baker, as I think you've conceded. ProfGray (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The near-invention of the DAB, and widespread use, created a circular precedent on Wikipedia which itself did not have that precedent prior. As a result, a major consistency concern was created. As I've noted, I'd be happy to change others from (merchant) to (slave trader) if there had been some RFC on this. But as it stands, it's one user that's unilaterally created this precedent and spread it across many of their own articles. And I do think if that DAB obscures other significant views, or creates confusion (e.g. there are "two John Dawsons" that were both slave traders (died 1812) and (died 1824)), then it's just a bad DAB. Articles will have their content regardless of DAB. But DABs should be neutral to represent all significant views. Making DABs non-neutral, focusing on only one of multiple significant views, and so systematically depressing other significant views, is rightgreatwrongs. It makes Wikipedia less objective and more confusing. My take. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: no it's not contentious that slave trading is abhorrent, and one of the most significant views of these people. But it's not the only significant view. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your concern is about the (slave trader) DAB "systematically depressing other significant views." This sounds like some other view is consistently, repeatedly, being left out. What significant views are "systematically" being suppressed? ProfGray (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we just have a healthy disagreement on neutral/due weight. I believe the ideal of Wiki articles is that all significant views are covered in length and organisation according to their significance. If you have info primarily related to one significant view, that's fine to create an article. Those are stub/start class, and they can be updated by the community to fill gaps. But ideally you don't create a DAB for that article that makes it hard or confusing to later connect it to other significant views you may be unaware of. You also really shouldn't go on a campaign to pump your articles to the front page through "DYK" (see July 2021 trail), which is basically using Wiki to advertise that significant view (re: "systematic"). And I'm not the first to raise a concern that Desertarun's articles are full of original narratives. That's the bias concern, even if it's a bias written from the right side of history and edited in good faith.

Like... "for our culture, it's the most significant aspect of people like Peter Baker". I think that's true in a WP:OR sense, but getting outside his Wikipedia article arguing it, I'm genuinely not sure it's Peter Baker's main infamy. I went hunting for info on this guy, and I first found him as lord mayor, then I asked archivists and they dug up articles on the capture of the Carnatic, and Carnatic Hall. Even the modern articles of "famous in Liverpool tied to slave trade" have two-three other significant views they lay out first: i) the capture of Carnatic to explain ii) Carnatic Hall, which together is an impact extending into the modern day (noteworthy because it has pathos attached to it), then iii) the lord mayor part, i.e. "big deal guy", and finally iv) the slave trader part, which is the sobering fact of those articles once you know the rest. These historical persons rarely make the "famous in Liverpool history" status without having other significant views. So to frame not just the article (good), but even the DAB itself (messy), around one significant view systematically depresses the idea that these figures have other significant views. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You didn't answer my question: What significant views are "systematically" being suppressed?

You feel there's something inappropriate. But what is wrong with anyone creating new articles on a topic? And, really, why this feeling about the DYKs? After all, we have entire WikiProjects to get people to create new articles -- and hence DYKs -- on topics that would benefit from more coverage. Like Women in Red, it's a campaign.

It seems like you come back to arguing about the DAB for Peter Baker, rather than any systematic suppression of a non-slavery primary topic(s) as the disambiguator.

Again, my basic suggestion is to assume good faith with Desertarun, collaborate on Baker or other articles, and deal with each concern on a case-by-case basis without assuming some kind of systematic bias on their part. ProfGray (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I felt I did. I think we don't see eye-to-eye on how a title shapes a perception. A page title is the most impactful, most important part of any article. The reason I come back to DAB is because before you know any of the text, your view is already influenced towards one significant view. For articles where multiple significant views may be possible, and where the writing may not provide complete coverage, providing DABs off only the significant view the author knows of unduly influences the fate of the article. You see what I mean?

It's ok if we disagree here. But I'm not intending to dodge questions. I just give a very high value to a title as an influence on the reader. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's not direct enough: lord mayor is a significant view suppressed by the DAB "(slave trader)". The author, with their own narrative, may feel "(slave trader)" is a more notable DAB. But that's WP:OR, and prior to the slew of articles Desertarun wrote, it was a very uncommon DAB. One would have expected "(lord mayor)" for someone like Baker, as there was a long-running precedent. And the same comment applies to all lord mayors now DAB'd by Desertarun with "(slave trader)". -- Crawdaunt (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your comments refer to two types of "views" — there are the views reflected in sources and central to NPOV and POV — and then there are editorial choices, like DAB, which is not a "view" (POV) in Wiki policy discourse. (Or the views of readers, too.)

The article should reflect all significant views POVs and info in the reliable sources, and write them up in a neutral way.

The DAB and title do not need to reflect these views. They should refer to the "primary topic" — (1) what readers will care about and (2) what's of long term significance, educational value, as determined by us editors. Maybe the slave trade was not a big deal to 18th sources, but how important is it to readers nowadays?

Is "Lord Mayor" of greatest significance to readers of this biography? If so, how many years did Baker serve and what were his significant accomplishments were?

(Also: Please look at the definition of Original Research, because it isn't relevant to the DAB at stake, or to accusations about any editor's choice for that DAB.) Yes, article titles matter and they should be recognizable, precise, and consistent with similar articles (be they slave traders or mayors). ProfGray (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, I agree with all of that, and yet I'm still not on board with how this entire (slave trader) DAB was established across these articles. Consider how this would have been different if it had been a RFC for "(lord mayor)" -> "(slave trader)". Re: politically charged: would that have made a difference to the nature of the discourse? How would presumptive motivations of myself or Desertarun have been different? Heck: imagine I hadn't self-declared COI - if that'd change your view dramatically, I'd say politics are a huge factor.

I'll say outright that I probably would vote in favour of a theoretical "mayor->slaver" vote starting from mayor, if a proper debate was laid bare. I'd vote that way because it would be establishing precedent with a democratic process, and generating a reference discussion for similar issues across other (lord mayor)/(merchant) pages. My position atm comes from "Hey, it's kinda weird that one user decided to buck wp:consistency unilaterally." I did not endorse starting a formal vote, in fact I actively asked for a mediator to close it because it was opened in my name against my wishes. Then I got hit repeatedly by accusations of canvassing, bad faith due to COI, etc... A proper discussion would have been a boon to this corner of Wikipedia. Instead we're left with a mess.

It's a shame too, because now that the page has the text on the rest of Baker's personal life added from Phillips (much of which originally from Griffiths (1907) it seems), it's the right time to have a WP:RFC. Editors earlier said "well, provided there aren't other significant views not on the page... keep." Well... now there are other significant views present. But I'm not stirring that hornet's nest again. Last time, I was roundly disregarded off a self-declared COI, and a bait-n-switch where I advertised a newly-available source up front, was invited to use it to write a section, and then got lambasted for using it as the editors I'd engaged with changed their opinion to "this is not WP:RS." If that complaint had been put to me first, I'd have found additional sources, which I now have. The content I added (including some of the content you removed) is almost entirely referenceable to more palatable sources like Griffiths (1907) or Boult (1868).

I'm an idiot who constantly overshares/overexplains. I'm on the spectrum, and feel I will be misunderstood if I don't explain everything clearly, which means no one reads what I write in sum (or worse, they selectively read it). But in the vice versa: one-sentence opinions lacking sources don't work for me. Even the conversation here is derailed from my point. You talk about how DABs should be X,Y,Z and that's not something I disagree with. I'm concerned entirely with the consistency process here, which affects a whole corner of Wikipedia.

Logging off for my mental health. You've genuinely been great @ProfGray, I really appreciate your respectful engagement, even if I'd like to agree to disagree. Keep doing what you're doing, you're very good at it. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What are citations or links for the Boult and Griffiths books?

Thanks for explaining your tendency to explain. I agree that the process was flawed, and I'm sorry for not catching the problem with the Phillips source earlier. For better or worse, WP editing decisions are usually to be based on principles, even if the preceding process was messed up. All the best, ProfGray (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rajarsi Janakananda on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ProfGray:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with Add a Fact usage has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Fram (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jex Blackmore you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jex Blackmore and Talk:Jex Blackmore/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, @Grnrchst. I'm busy until after the Wiki Conf NA, so can you start the clock for revisions on Oct 7th? Cheers, ProfGray (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ProfGray: Aye, no bother. Enjoy the conference! --Grnrchst (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Religion of the Shang dynasty on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally ok with you discussing the notability, so long as the participants in question eventually answer the question: "what is the difference between call for the destruction of Israel" and anti-Zionism. In the past, I've never quite gotten a specific answer and hence I feel this is a fork.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, we can't ensure or force ppl to answer. There are already some answers, e.g., the supposed Calls are rhetorical allegations (by outsiders), they are antisemitic, or they are a subset of anti-Zionism.

Regardless, I doubt that Wikipedia:Content forks is your best objection, because this article could be a sub-article (not an alternative) to various articles, such as Anti-Zionism. I think the problem is that the article is a hodgepodge of different oppositional policies, while the topic is defined (or implemented) in terms of speech ("Calls"). Do you see what I mean? Or should I elaborate? ProfGray (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]