User talk:Voorts

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30: 5 days

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Voorts}}), so that I will be notified.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report

Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

Introduction
Membership news, obituary and election results
Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page
Closing words

– Your Guild coordinators: Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Clown_Egg_Register[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clown_Egg_Register is the real counterpart to the redlinked article you mentioned. User:Pedant (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pedant Thanks for sharing. I might add a few cites. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green GA Editathon June 2024 - Going Back in Time[edit]

Hello Voorts:

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

Running from June 1 to 30, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Going Back in Time! 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 20 centuries 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!

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2024[edit]

News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections

Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?

Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24

In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis

Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure

Comix: Generations

Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Hinder[edit]

Hi User:Voorts - thanks for your work on Addie Viola Smith. Just wondering if you had any immediate plans to create an article on Eleanor Hinder which I notice is currently redlinked? If not I'd be happy to make a start. ITBF (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any plans to create an article about Hinder at this point. I believe @Clio.at.work was also interested in working on that article. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party rfc closure[edit]

I don't think the discussion on Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia) regarding conservatism and SYNTH warranted the conclusion you gave. Two people stated "No" to the question and one person said "Yes", and yet you concluded in favour of the "Yes" side by stating that there was a consensus. Okay, there were more people who questioned the idea the source was SYNTH, but to assume any sort of consensus was formed I think was wrong. Helper201 (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is assessed in part by evaluating strength of argument. Tarnished Path explained why your argument was incorrect, Alpha3031 also agreed that your position was implausible, and Curbon7 stated that he wouldn't necessarily describe it [the article] as synthesis. As I noted in my close, Compassionate727's point wasn't related to the SYNTH issue at all. In any event, this point is moot because the issue will ultimately be addressed in the discussion about whether inclusion in the infobox is WP:DUE. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I reject their argument as the source still violates synth and I also explained why this is still the case. Three people gave an explicit statement on the matter. To say one person (myself) saying its synth, another person also rejecting the source's use, verses two supporting the source, and a third stating "wouldn't necessarily" does not constitute a consensus. Helper201 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]