Talk:United States congressional staff edits to Wikipedia

Untitled

See also Wikipedia talk:Congressional Staffer Edits, Talk:Norm Coleman

IP address recently blocked

Is it worth mentioning the IP address that was recently blocked? The Wire The Washington Post Yahoo News Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Axl: I think this article should include a section that mentions that some IP addresses have been blocked after a clear pattern of abuse. It could cite articles like those mentioned. What do you think about also saying something like, "For more on this, see Wikipedia:Congressional staffer edits. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I just modified that section to use the word "block", previously absent in this sense in the article. I hope y'all will consider that an improvement. DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitol Hill training - August 18

Hi! In case anyone here is interested, there's going to be a panel discussion on Congressional edits to Wikipedia, ways staffers can be helpful and good community members, and issues of notability, neutrality, and conflict of interest. The panel discussion will be in one of the House office buildings in Washington DC on August 18 and is open to the public. RSVP and read more about it here. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture

Cross-posted from Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture: --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I question including this information. I'd assume that hundreds of staffers have access to these lines and that one or two edited Wikipedia does not seem of much importance to me. Gandydancer (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the section. For anyone who is interested, the diff is [1]. Tiny edits made by a Congressional IP address that were quickly reverted are really of no lasting significance to the story of the report. We have other places for things like that (e.g. U.S. Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia). Dragons flight (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, the news source was https://twitter.com/congressedits/status/542730852162351104 via [[2]] via [[3]]. Mehmetaergun (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I was the one who added a section about it to this page (congressional edits); I didn't see anything on this talk page warning someone earlier not to, so I pulled a WP:BOLD. (I would have checked reliability better if I hadn't personally witnessed the event, but that's no excuse.) Dr. Fleischman reverted with "mashable isn't a reliable source, per past WP:RSN discussions. Let this bubble up in the mainstream media before re-adding." That sounds fine to me. Thanks and sorry! FourViolas (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

User:EditsArticles added a ref to the Huffington Post (a source of contention, as I'd noticed and User:Flyer22 points out, on the WP:RSN). Flyer reinstated the material. I'd like to request that it be allowed to stay this time, by the following arguments:

• It may be WP:IAR to cite a non-consensus source, but we don't need to worry about its veracity because have the information right here and it's exactly the same quality that past WP:RS have relied on. The WP:QUESTIONABLE sources establish notability, and I'm petitioning for a IAR one-time recourse to primary-source WP:OR verifiability.
• It's possible that the big sources will overlook this amidst the deluge of more important scandals relating to the report, and this is exactly the kind of edit this article is intended to document. If we think it's ever important for WP readers to know about U.S. Congressional attempts to influence WP content, shouldn't we mention this textbook example of trying to frame a highly visible debate in more favorable terms? FourViolas (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add anything to the article; I simply made two WP:Dummy edits, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. FourViolas (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Wikipedia:Congressional staffer edits be merged into U.S. Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia. These articles overlap and are needlessly duplicative, in that they cover the same subject, with the same scope. I volunteer to perform the merge via cut & paste, but will not do so without a consensus of interested editors. JohnValeron (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

These are in different namespaces, for good reason. This article is for general consumption and follows our content policies and guidelines. WP:CONGRESS is for consumption by editors and has lots of useful information that would never pass content policies and guidelines such as WP:WPNOTRS and WP:IINFO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. I withdraw my proposal. JohnValeron (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929103102/http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/13750990.htm to http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/13750990.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)