User talk:ThePorgieBaggins98

Admin help possible harassment
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)
 * I do not have any connections. Ghoyt98 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion
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
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 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
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
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.

Peter Petrigno

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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Far-right politicians in the United States


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 Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_21. 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, 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
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
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)

Peer review for critical race theory
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 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)

January 2022 Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

March editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

April Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

June events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in July 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in September 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red October 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red November 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in December 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red January 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in February 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red March 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red May 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red - June 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red July 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

September 2023 at Women in Red
--Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red October 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red December 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red January 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red February 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red May 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red June 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging