Talk:Russell Sage Foundation

Social Work Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New York City

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Edits by User:Russellsage

User:Russellsage has declared their affiliation with the Foundation on their user page. This editor has made some good and significant contributions to the article. I have advised them on the rules about editing with a conflict of interest, and expressed the opinion to them that I thought they did a good job of maintaining a neutral point of view in contributing to the article. I've done some copyediting and I will continue to look for anything that might be problematic, but so far I have not come across anything. I urge other editors to assume good faith regarding this editor's future contributions to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are visiting scholars more notable than visiting Journalists?

I have added two visiting journalists (there already two visiting scholars) but my edit was reverted with this edit summary: we're not a newspaper, or a vehicloe for promotion - this information is not encyclopedic. What do others think? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

The first thing you need to do is review WP:BRD When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, and please do not revert your edit back into the article again until you have a consensus here to do so.

As the person who removed your edit in the first place, I stand by my reasoning, a "visiting journalist" for this year might make an entry in a list, but it's not worthy of textual description. BMK (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: FYI WP:BRD is not a WP:Guideline. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

And? It's probably more accepted by Wikipedians in general than a lot of guidelines are. BMK (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all the detail (too much in my opinion)- is this satisfactory and not "promotional"? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]