Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hello, Slugger O'Toole

Thank you for creating Genevra R. Counihan.

User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Surely you can do better? Why is an editor with your tenure submitting single source stubs? Articles require at least two high quality independent sources.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

— Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 20:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insertcleverphrasehere, For the last several years, my main focus has been on Women in Red. I found a list of every female state legislator in Massachusetts, the single source used is this article. I've created dozens of stub articles using it all following the template in my sandbox, and none have been moved to draft before. That single source has always been enough to demonstrate that the article passes GNG. I don't have time to give them all the full treatment I would like, so I figured a stub was better than nothing. If my understanding is wrong, I would appreciate being set right.

I've also found a few new sources for this particular article, though, as I suspected it would be for a two-term backbencher, coverage is light. I submitted the draft for review. If you would be kind enough to give it another look I would be obliged. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding additional sources. Note that a single source is never enough to demonstrate meeting the GNG. The GNG requires multiple independent and reliable sources that show significant coverage. I guess the issue is that stubs on rarely visited pages like this rarely get significant future improvement, so it is important to be meeting at least the bare minimum of our sourcing requirements. It seems that someone else has already accepted it, but I would have happily done it myself. Nice work. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 06:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235 Online events: New: Alphabet Run: A to B | Baltic States Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green's Good Article Editathon: July 2022 – Women and the Environment Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

It's been a while since I felt inspired to do any real research or content creation and I found some great stuff on Mary H. Goode that i'm working on incorporating into the article. I've never done a DYK before but I think we totally could with this one! PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! If I can be of help please let me know. I really enjoy the research and content creation aspects of the project, but don't have the time to do much of it these days. So, instead, I am working on making women blue with templated stubs. The hope is that someone will come along and expand them, like you are! Thanks again for the kind words and for your contributions. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GenoV84. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to HIV/AIDS in the United States seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. GenoV84 (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited that article in two years, so I'm not sure to which "recent edit" you are referring. If you can be a little more specific, I would be glad to try and rectify it. If you would rather I stay out and let the community work on it instead, I'd be glad to do that as well. I don't have the time for content disputes or inclination to engage in edit wars, but also don't want a problem to persist if I have the power to fix it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is this ([1]); I already fixed it. GenoV84 (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is Slugger fixing a ref, @GenoV84? PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No @Praxidicae, the edit is Slugger adding a self-published religious book which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article, the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States, without explanation or justification. GenoV84 (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you fixed it to your satisfaction, Geno. I'll considered this resolved. However, I might suggest you reconsider using phrases such as "disgusting religious propaganda." I don't find the hyperbolic tone to be helpful. Additionally, the edit in question was two years ago, so again I'll note that it was not "recent." Glad it all worked out. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm having a hard time adding content to this article with reliable refs. What do you think about the future of this article? Do you think it can reach WP:GNG? I can do some more deep digging, but so far I'm falling short. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on my end doesn't turn up much else either. At this time, I don't think it reaches GNG and I don't see how it could get there, at least not with the tools available to me. Thanks for the flag, and good luck! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]