User talk:Bridget
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Women in Red April 2025
[edit]
Announcements (Events facilitated by others):
Tip of the month:
Moving the needle: (statistics available via Humaniki tool)
Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 2,657 articles during this period! Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Amanda Burden- assistance request
[edit]Hello Bridget. Nice to meet you. I work for Bloomberg and related entities and have declared my connection as Wiki policy requires. I noticed your impressive contributions to the encyclopedia, especially to the articles about women, and I am hoping you'd be able to help with some changes on Amanda Burden's entry as well. She served as the director of the New York City Department of City Planning and the chair of the City Planning Commission. Her article currently contains some information that is misleading and irrelevant. I posted the edit request on the article Talk page. Can you please review and implement these edits?
Thank you, DLARoss (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hi DLARoss, thanks for reaching out. Since you did open an edit request, I think it would be better handled if it's reviewed by someone who usually respond to those kinds of requests rather than me. If there are further concerns though please let me know. Best, Bridget (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2025
[edit]
Announcements (events facilitated by others):
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 09:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Birthright citizenship in the United States
[edit]Hi Bridget. This edit by you caught my eye. I disagree with your assertion that the term "illegitimate" is not NPOV in this context. I have not reverted your edit because, AFAICS, the specific assertion impacted by your edit is incorrect irregardless of whether of not that term is present (see section 309 on pp. 237-238 here). IMO, this entire article section needs a rewrite in summary style to both better reflect the linked main article and to correct inaccuracies; I'm not going to attempt that myself, however, because I don't have the topical expertise to do it properly and cannot presently devote much time to doing that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Wtmitchell, thanks for reaching out. I agree, and I think I actually totally misred where the editor added "illegitimate" in that case. I don't think that I would have even edited the article if I had read it as "illegitimate children", given my lack of expertise. Bridget (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Separation of "Career" and "Controversies" on Hasan Piker article
[edit]Hi Bridget,
Thanks for your edit to the Hasan Piker article. I noticed you merged the "Career" and "Controversies" sections, and I wanted to understand your reasoning a bit more.
From my perspective, separating “Controversies” from the broader career narrative helps maintain clarity, neutrality, and alignment with the structure of other BLPs (e.g. similar public figures whose controversies are distinctly notable and independently sourced). I believe it also alligns with WP:CRITSP.Keeping the two sections distinct allows readers to differentiate between professional milestones and contentious issues, which seems consistent with Wikipedia's approach to due weight and sectioning in biographies.
Would you be open to discussing whether keeping them separate could be more encyclopaedically appropriate, given the volume and notability of coverage around certain incidents?
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForayHistory (talk • contribs) 14:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- This is a pretty clear case of WP:CSECTION – you are basically throwing all negative and/or critical coverage of the subject into a dedicated section. Specifically, a relevant quote from WP:CSECTION:
"Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section."
If you would like to discuss this further, please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Best, Bridget (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)- Duly noted, I must have misunderstood this:
- According to Wikipedia:Criticism:
“The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title (when there are distinct groups of controversies, the section title can be ‘Controversies’, with subsection titles indicating what these are about).”
- The intention was to have a clearer separation of career achievements and separate section for the contentious issues. But I shall follow your lead as a seasoned Wiki editor :) ForayHistory (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
I've reverted the changes. The article has a history of BLP/POV problems, and similar content has been repeatedly removed. --Hipal (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed – thanks. Bridget (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Julia Alexander
[edit]
On 11 May 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Julia Alexander, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 03:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)