Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Is there any objection to this change? The subject-verb agreement was off. That could be fixed either by making Molly herself the subject of the sentence, or by making the website the subject of the sentence. I now understand that the website name should be mentioned in the lead section, so the latter solution is probably better. 200.63.104.44 (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A critic of the decentralized blockchain (Web3) and cryptocurrency industries, she runs the website Web3 Is Going Just Great, which documents malfeasance in that technology space.
The "Wikipedia editing" section includes a note "Replace with this after update." I tried to do that, and it displayed "25,000 as of 2019". 103.178.42.233 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't answer your question, but including the current edit count in the article seems to me to be too "inside baseball" for an encyclopedia article. No one cares about (or even understands!) edit count except WP editors. Do our articles on books, for example, give a word count (too scared to look before I hit save on this)? If it were me, I'd remove that sentence. I have a feeling, though, that I might be in the minority on that. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the anonymous user who started this thread is an IP sock of the de-facto banned user Belteshazzar. I'm not sure what he is up to here but I advise treating it with grave suspicion. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found out about Ms. White on November 8, 2023, by reading her piece in the NYT. Curious, I went to Wiki. I write here because I found the last sentence of the article to be vague to the point of being unworthy of an article in an encyclopedia. Worse, the citation is behind a paywall. I am not a regular or a particularly skilled editor, but I do want to suggest to those who are regular editors (and Wallace Stevens fans!) to consider deleting that sentence, or at the very least attributing to a person those judgments about White's politics. AcheronLupus (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, seems pretty clear to me? She has left-wing political views, overlapping with or inclusive of socialism? A fairly bog standard statement found on many articles. And there's no issue with using a source behind a paywall (see WP:PAYWALL). What's the issue? Alyo(chat·edits)20:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion either way—and I can't get to the article myself to see what's being referenced (not a problem as per Wikipedia:PAYWALL)—but I'm curious: this sort of categorization feels like a kind of original research/synthesis—is it not?
I would also judge the subjects views to be basically left-ish socialist-ish, but I don't know that I would add the sentence in question unless I came across a reliable secondary source that described them that way, or could cite a primary source of the subject describing their politics as that. Isn't this the kind of analysis that's usually frowned upon? I also broadly agree with the topic creator that this sentence doesn't tell me much. There are so many views that go into leftism and socialism, and descriptors of the specific ones being summarized would be useful. Thanks! Handpigdad (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having now read the article being cited, it's not an appropriate source for the sentence its attached to. Her political views are barely discussed, mostly obliquely in terms of her editing of subjects "she absolutely doesn't like" (as per a wiki editor quoted in the article), which are listed in the article as "controversial viewpoints and male-dominated spaces, including right-wing extremism and 'involuntary celibates,' or incels." There's also a description of an open letter she signed on concerns about the blockchain's suitability as a "potential source of public benefit", which is more or less a universalist concern, but I don't think either of these examples from the article are enough to count as a positive descriptor of her political views, so much a negative description of those the subject finds objectionable.Ok sooooo I read the complete wrong article, thanks to Moboshgu's honest mistake. That's at least two tired editors on this page.
This isn't a sky is blue kind of claim, and I think it needs actual sourcing, and I don't think it's essential at the end of the article which consists mostly of description of her work and claims. I'm in favour of just deleting the sentence.Handpigdad (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would changing the sentence from "She holds left-wing views that skew towards socialism" to "She holds left-wing views she describes as skewing towards socialism" be acceptable? That makes the self-labeling clearer, which both adds meaning to the sentence, and makes clear this isn't OR. I think that would address the complaints of the topic creator, and improve the article. Handpigdad (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the claim would need to be further qualified. It's already not OR and quite straightforward. czar13:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
Done special:diff/1184216932 czar 01:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
