This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
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 a bit of a sub. We can easily expand out the history section to include the Fargo, St Louis, Seattle, and Missouri efforts. It might make sense to include an organizational structure section as well. Perhaps even an organizational opinions section too ?
Jasavina (
talk)
05:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Do not remove "See Also"
(Non-constructive edit.) The See Also sub-category is an integral aspect of Wikipedia. It provides users with opportunities for expansion of their worldviews, education and learning about alternative approaches/proposed-solutions.
I contest the removal of this, and especially as the editor who did so appears to have a conflict-of-interest. (See the author's profile page.)
The topic-pages that were removed provide competing, mutually-exclusive solutions in a "marketplace of ideas" —which is itself essential to the healthy function of any open (democratic or else truly representative) society.
SilentAshes (
talk)
08:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@SilentAshes To expand on my point, it consists of two links, one of which doesn't actually link to a page about the organization listed. it just seemed like it wasn't actually contributing anything of value to the article.
Jasavina (
talk)
04:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@SilentAshes You know, I've been looking for another wiki project. I guess this is a good excuse to write up a page for the Equal Vote Coalition and find a few more organizations to flesh out the see also section.
Jasavina (
talk)
04:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@SilentAshes No worries! You gotta keep a sharp eye on politics stuff anyhow, since there's strong incentive to paint things the way you want them to be, instead of the way they are.
I think I'll do some digging and see if there's enough information out there to make a decent page on The Equal Vote Coalition, the current redirect isn't bc acceptable in my opinion, but I don't want to write up a poorly-sourced article.
Jasavina (
talk)
06:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)reply
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
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 a bit of a sub. We can easily expand out the history section to include the Fargo, St Louis, Seattle, and Missouri efforts. It might make sense to include an organizational structure section as well. Perhaps even an organizational opinions section too ?
Jasavina (
talk)
05:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Do not remove "See Also"
(Non-constructive edit.) The See Also sub-category is an integral aspect of Wikipedia. It provides users with opportunities for expansion of their worldviews, education and learning about alternative approaches/proposed-solutions.
I contest the removal of this, and especially as the editor who did so appears to have a conflict-of-interest. (See the author's profile page.)
The topic-pages that were removed provide competing, mutually-exclusive solutions in a "marketplace of ideas" —which is itself essential to the healthy function of any open (democratic or else truly representative) society.
SilentAshes (
talk)
08:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@SilentAshes To expand on my point, it consists of two links, one of which doesn't actually link to a page about the organization listed. it just seemed like it wasn't actually contributing anything of value to the article.
Jasavina (
talk)
04:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@SilentAshes You know, I've been looking for another wiki project. I guess this is a good excuse to write up a page for the Equal Vote Coalition and find a few more organizations to flesh out the see also section.
Jasavina (
talk)
04:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@SilentAshes No worries! You gotta keep a sharp eye on politics stuff anyhow, since there's strong incentive to paint things the way you want them to be, instead of the way they are.
I think I'll do some digging and see if there's enough information out there to make a decent page on The Equal Vote Coalition, the current redirect isn't bc acceptable in my opinion, but I don't want to write up a poorly-sourced article.
Jasavina (
talk)
06:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)reply