Talk:OnPoint NYC: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Rivera’s response to complaints: new section |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
You may be right about the Time 100 thing, I don’t know what Wikipedia’s normal stance is on such lists. You have an axe to grind about harm reduction but so be it, Wikipedia is full of axe-grinders. The preceding sentence I strongly object to removing. The article devotes a lot of space to community complaints about OnPoint, and it makes sense to record the organization’s response to such complaints. Hopefully someone else is watching this page and can break the tie so to speak, I don’t expect to convince you of anything. [[User:Prezbo|Prezbo]] ([[User talk:Prezbo|talk]]) 09:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
You may be right about the Time 100 thing, I don’t know what Wikipedia’s normal stance is on such lists. You have an axe to grind about harm reduction but so be it, Wikipedia is full of axe-grinders. The preceding sentence I strongly object to removing. The article devotes a lot of space to community complaints about OnPoint, and it makes sense to record the organization’s response to such complaints. Hopefully someone else is watching this page and can break the tie so to speak, I don’t expect to convince you of anything. [[User:Prezbo|Prezbo]] ([[User talk:Prezbo|talk]]) 09:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
:You again restored it. I believe that it is undue. Given [[WP:ONUS]], please explain why you believe your personal preference and what makes sense to you appears to take precedence over that of others when agreement can not be reached. I've noted your removal for things such as "remove fascist press" and such which seems entrenched in opinion based removal. At the present point, you re-inserted what you want featured while removing what you believe to be undue. ONUS would suggest resting on non-inclusion unless agreed upon by consensus, not feature what you want, exclude what you don't. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 10:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 10:26, 16 February 2024
 | It is requested that an image oder photograph of OnPoint NYC be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Manhattan may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from OnPoint NYC appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 July 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
( )
- ... that OnPoint NYC's safe injection sites treated 672 overdoses in their first year of operation, with no resulting deaths? Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/new-york-s-supervised-injection-sites-have-halted-nearly-700-overdoses-in-just-over-a-year/ar-AA15V3yK
- Reviewed:
Created by Prezbo (talk). Self-nominated at 14:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/OnPoint NYC; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Verified that the hook is interesting and is sourced in the article. I suggest minor improvement to the article such as adding the infobox. Toadboy123 (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Rivera’s response to complaints
You may be right about the Time 100 thing, I don’t know what Wikipedia’s normal stance is on such lists. You have an axe to grind about harm reduction but so be it, Wikipedia is full of axe-grinders. The preceding sentence I strongly object to removing. The article devotes a lot of space to community complaints about OnPoint, and it makes sense to record the organization’s response to such complaints. Hopefully someone else is watching this page and can break the tie so to speak, I don’t expect to convince you of anything. Prezbo (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- You again restored it. I believe that it is undue. Given WP:ONUS, please explain why you believe your personal preference and what makes sense to you appears to take precedence over that of others when agreement can not be reached. I've noted your removal for things such as "remove fascist press" and such which seems entrenched in opinion based removal. At the present point, you re-inserted what you want featured while removing what you believe to be undue. ONUS would suggest resting on non-inclusion unless agreed upon by consensus, not feature what you want, exclude what you don't. Graywalls (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)