Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your precise and argumentative insight in the deletion discussion going on about the page Anna Geddes. Cirton (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cirton, and for your succinct contribution that distills the key issue. It will be fun to expand this article with the sources unearthed during the discussion. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Silberman

Thanks for your comments and research for List of female American football players. I just realized I had cut some content you had added to the page, right as I had started trying to cut the page down, first by deleting the redundant prose section at the top. I noticed you had added a quote about Lauren Silberman, and just wanted to make sure you were aware that she is generally viewed as having pulled a publicity stunt for no good reason. She had zero experience in gridiron football and apparently did very little to seriously prepare for the NFL tryout, and embarrassed everyone who was watching. She was even turning to other players at the trial, asking them how she should go about kicking the ball. Her publicity stunt may have very well spoiled the chances for other women – women who actually do have experience playing the sport – to try out for the NFL. You can read more about in this USA Today article interviewing Katie Hnida (please search for it if this link doesn't work), and in other articles. Obviously this is a sensitive issue and the list page needs to include Lauren Silberman, but I don't think we should try to pretend it was a viable attempt to try out for the NFL. I am planning to go back and edit that section further, once the rest of the list is in a better state. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cielquiparle, thank you for following up - this is a WP:BLP issue, and I removed unsourced disparaging content for which I could not find reliable support, and instead found a source stating the opposite, so I added that. I also removed what seemed to be a WP:WIKIVOICE issue when it appeared you removed factual information and instead described her tryout as a "failure", so I restored the facts from the source about what happened. Please note that if you add the USA Today article as a source for the statement that she "apparently did very little to seriously prepare for the NFL tryout, and embarrassed everyone who was watching", and/or that "she is generally viewed as having pulled a publicity stunt for no good reason", I will plan on removing it as unsourced and contrary to WP:BLP policy. I think we should be mindful of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and stay as close as possible to the sources, without editorializing in Wikipedia's voice. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not planning to editorialize. I actually thought "failure" is objective – you take a test, you apply for a job, you pass or fail. It wasn't intended as a judgment. Actually it's standard sports language – you win or lose, you succeed in your campaign or you fail. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for following up again, Cielquiparle - I think in this context, per the source I added, "failure" does not adequately summarize what happened during the tryout. She did not complete the tryout, after consulting with medics, so generalizing this as a failure does not appear to be objectively supported by the sources that add details about her attempt. For example, a student who attempts a test but leaves before it is completed because they sought medical attention would likely get an 'incomplete' grade instead of a 'fail'. We have sourced facts about what happened, so we can present them in a neutral manner and let the reader decide. Beccaynr (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other point is – when I made that edit, I was deliberately trying to summarize, because the bulletpoint in the section below already included all the detail about what happened. I thought it was repetitive. That's all. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out, Cielquiparle, I had definitely missed that, and instead focused on what appeared to be unsourced information. Also, nice work in cleaning up the article, it seems to be much improved thanks to your efforts. Beccaynr (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought you should know: The only reason I ever stumbled on ARS was because of your User page, as I wondered what those icons meant. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cielquiparle, I just spent some time reviewing deletion-related policy, information, and essay pages because I had recalled ARS at some point being linked somewhere as a suggestion (I have also been trying to recall how I initially found the project when I was new to AfD), but have not been able to find it. I am curious as to how the flotation device icons on my userpage, which link to articles, not ARS, resulted in someone otherwise unfamiliar with ARS making the association. And I am asking this sincerely, because if you think my use of the icons is a problem, I would like to consider how I can address it. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it! I probably should have just asked (I think I read it on one of your Talk pages). I had no idea it was going to lead to such drama. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review Request

Two of the articles I edited [1] and [2] are being nominated for deletion. Can you please review and advise on the same and possibly add your vote/comment in the nomination process. Thank you Amitized (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashwini_Upadhyay
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karan_Acharya
Hi Amitized, I already !voted in both deletion discussions, and made small edits to both the Karan Acharya and Ashwini Upadhyay articles. I think both articles, similar to all articles, can continue to be developed, and the Ashwini Upadhyay article likely will take more work due to how much coverage there is about his legal career. Do you have a specific question about the articles? Beccaynr (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I missed it, thank you for guiding me, one question thought Karan Acharya is a genuine article but every now and then someone keeps nominating it for deletion. Where does it stop finally? I mean there has to be a conclusive end to it. Amitized (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for following up, Amitized - one broad reason it is possible for articles to be renominated for deletion is because consensus is a fundamental Wikipedia policy for decisionmaking, and consensus can change. Article deletion discussions are decided by rough consensus, and are generally considered to be non-binding precedent. I have seen previously-kept articles nominated more than once, usually with the nominator explaining why they disagree with the outcome of a previous discussion, or explaining what has changed since the previous discussion. Sometimes past deletion discussions are not well-attended, and sometimes there may be procedural concerns or other issues with a past discussion. Also, editors can have good faith disagreements about how our guidelines and policies apply to a particular article. However, my general sense is that a well-developed deletion discussion can either help deter repeated nominations or make the development of rough consensus easier in future deletion discussions. Even though it is not possible to completely prevent a new nomination for deletion, continuing to develop the article can also help; this includes using reputable sources and removing questionable ones. For example, in the Karan Acharya article, I suggest removing the News18 reference and using more reliable sources to verify information. Sometimes improvements to the article structure may also help demonstrate notability, and this could be applied to the Ashwini Upadhyay article by creating subsections for the various topic areas of litigation he has focused on during his career. Other issues that can be addressed generally to help reduce new deletion discussions are improvements to encyclopedic tone, and the removal of promotional content, because articles that look like advertisements are likely to be nominated for deletion. Please note that these are my views on the process, and additional resources for questions include the Help Desk, and there are a variety of resources and information at the dispute resolution policy page. Beccaynr (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow thank you for your guidance @Beccaynr I will work to optimize the articles as you suggested. And while we if I may ask for guidance on 2 more articles that were moved to draftspace, that would be great. Isha Ambani <Draft:Isha Ambani> and G23 leaders <Draft:G23 leaders> thank you again for your continued support. Amitized (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amitized, I spent some time reviewing the sources in Draft:Isha Ambani and it looks like there are not enough independent and reliable secondary sources to support the article, and there are also WP:PROMO issues, because that policy emphasizes how articles cannot be an extension of promotional efforts by the article subject. For example, in the 2022 article Rise of Isha Ambani in The Hindu Business Line, what might otherwise be the type of secondary commentary that could help support her notability is instead credited to "Reliance insiders say" and "Mukesh Ambani has often said", and is therefore not independent while also appearing to be an effort to promote her. Similarly, the 2020 article How the Ambani kids’ upbringing was stricter than you’d expect – Indian billionaire children Isha, Akash and Anant took the bus to school and had 7 US cents for lunch money each day in the South China Morning Post is based on what her mother "told women’s lifestyle network iDiva", "The Tribune India quoted Isha", "In an interview with Entertainment Times, Nita has said", "Isha says", "Nita also told iDiva", without clear independent reporting about her and very limited independent commentary about her family. The 2018 article Ivy League, high-society galas, and Jio: Isha Ambani is more than just the Reliance heiress in The Economic Times also appears to be promotional, because what might otherwise be secondary commentary that could help support her notability is instead credited to "Ambani recently revealed" and "He said", and the article otherwise includes an overview of her education and career, as well as her fashion highlights and "rumours" related to her upcoming wedding. The brief 2021 article Isha Ambani, Akash Ambani: Twin faces of the future in India Today does not include secondary commentary or much context, and summarizes her education and career. The brief 2016 Firstpost blog post does not have a byline and appears promotional, including because it announces a new venture by the company, includes the website, and notes her presence at an event. The 2020 Vogue India article about her wedding begins by referencing an interview, and then reviews Instagram content, various events related to their engagement and wedding with fashion and celebrity sightings, information "According to Isha", and many pictures. This does not add a lot of independent or in-depth content to help support notability. The 2022 article from Business Today (India) also appears promotional because it lacks a byline, and is based on "Reliance Retail said" and "Isha Ambani, Director, Reliance Retail Ventures said", instead of clearly independent content. While there is coverage in a variety of sources over time, it does not appear that an encyclopedia article can be supported with what is available at this time, based on the guidelines and policies. Beccaynr (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr thank you for such a deep and educative review. I will try to identify more wiki compliant sources based on your guidance to me. Thank you once again.Amitized (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Great work to help to save Felicity LaFortune. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Bearian! This one was a fun surprise :) Beccaynr (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual orientations

Thank you for your work on List of gender identities. Are you interested in having a look at List of sexual orientations? This was deleted via PROD around the same time but I've had it restored and then it was promptly nominated for deletion again. ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, Kvng - I have not had a lot of time or focus to work on this, but finally added my thoughts to the discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The teacher

Acharya
Thank you for being an awesome guide. Amitized (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My humble thanks to you, Amitized - I am happy to share my perspective when I can. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Nobel laureates by religion

Genuine question, given the reliable sourcing presented at the AfD, why do you see the list of Jewish winners of the Nobel prize as original research? Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Goldsztajn - part of my thinking was influenced by the Hollinger (2002) source you posted, i.e. We need to find a way out of the booster-bigot trap, which quickly channels discussions of Jews in comparison to other groups into the booster's uncritical celebration of Jewish achievements or the bigot's malevolent complaint about Jewish conspiracies. The only way it seems possible to avoid the 'quick channel' a list creates is to create a prose article that adds what I think is the depth needed to avoid the WP:SYNTH required to make judgements about who should be included in the list. In my comment before my !vote, I also added scholarly sources that complicated the connections and from my view, render a simple list unencyclopedic, essentially indicating that it would be WP:SYNTH to present a straightforward connection. I also do not believe this can be solved be redefining Judaism only as a faith, and I think attempts to do so would be a form of WP:OR, because sources do not seem to support this and spotchecking laureates shows Jewish identity is more complex than this. Some of the sources I identified in the discussion also discuss nonreligious laureates, which seems to add to the complexity and further supports the need for a well-developed article on this topic generally, with various prose subsections. I had a much easier time finding sources and !voting keep in the other recent laureate discussions, but this bundle of lists did not have the same kind of support I had relied on to support my position in those discussions. Please do let me know if it would be helpful for me to further explain my thoughts. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Beccaynr - thanks for the reply, and I guess we see things very differently. :) I think you are overly complicating matters and I see much of the discussion as a product of the very poorly constructed nomination which conflates identity with religion. Hollinger is making a point about what conclusions we would draw from a list of Jewish winners (or billionaires or Bolsheviks) not the list, per se - that would be a content matter, but not a matter that reflects upon the notability of the list (he's actually acknowledging these are notable issues for discussion!). Who to include on the list can be done on the basis of sourcing, again a content matter. As for the nomination, list of Jewish winners is about identity, there are actually two about religion and, I would argue, one is not actually about religion. There's multiple reliable sources which specifically list Jewish winners; in this, I fail to see as relevant any discourse about the influence of religion on winning the Nobel prize. It's a simple question - are there reliable sources which demonstrate the "cultural phenomenon" of Jewish winners of the Nobel? I cannot see how one can answer no on the basis of the sourcing. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, Goldsztajn, and I think for list construction purposes, the available sourcing will lead us to WP:SYNTH because of how Jewish identity can be defined. What if someone converts to a religion other than Judaism? or becomes nonreligious? are they still included because they were once Jewish (this applies to all of the religion lists)? I think determining who qualifies for the list is more than a content issue because I don't expect sources to give us a clear answer, so I think a prose article is needed to address the cultural phenomenon, and help clarify what conclusions can reasonably be drawn about the significance of the various connections. I read the Hollinger quote as urging caution about how information is presented, e.g. to be wary of WP:SYNTH, so I favor developing context for the topic generally and specifically. Beccaynr (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - Who is a Jew? .... LOL, that discussion is thousands of years old. FWIW, there's multiple sources which list Jewish winners, the vast preponderance are simply not controversial, those few which are unclear (eg John Polyani) can be determined by discussion. I still see your response as missing the forest for the trees, so to speak, you're engaged in a debate about the subject of the AfD, while not assessing the contents, quality or validity of the sources I've mentioned. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, Goldsztajn, that article, thank you for sharing it, and as to the sources, I think the scholarly ones I point to in the discussion have a higher quality than lists and general commentary. I perceive multiple problems that are related but distinct - including the sourcing for how to define inclusion, as well as the sourcing to support whether this is an encyclopedic cross-categorization - from my view, we have sources supporting a prose article but warning us away from lists, and WP:LISTN tells us There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y"), so I think you are correct to focus on the quality/validity of the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've honestly struggled to understand your interpretation, because to me, the way in which you frame cross-categorisation, there's no actual threshold point for notability. But in any debate LISTN implicitly requires us to propose a threshold for the discussion - "no consensus" doesn't mean defining notability is impossible, it just means no generalised one in the community exists. FWIW, you analysed sources specifically around religion, my apologies for reiterating this, however, the list of Jewish winners is not about religion, but rather identity. However, this is my last point: the basis of my argument is LISTN: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." (my emphasis) The debate about cross-categorisation is a red-herring, the grouping itself is backed by sources. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Goldsztajn, from my view, when we look at the scholarly sources discussing the grouping or set generally, i.e. the ones I highlight in my first comment in the discussion, these sources tell us that the connections are more complex than a straightforward list. I also think we have some WP:NPOV issues if we attempt to develop a list, as the Who is a Jew? article helps emphasize, as well as the non-RS sources that have not been cited in the discussion but are at the top of some online search results and reflect the polarity identified by Hollinger (2002). Based on core policies, it appears that this material should be developed as a prose article that can articulate the nuances of the subject matter as expressed by reliable scholarly sources. List inclusion criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, and the scholarly sources in particular seem to show that we do not have unambiguous criteria available, and the WP:OR/WP:NPOV concerns I have expressed apply to what appears to be a lack of objective standards for list inclusion as well as whether lists should exist despite scholarly sources telling us there is no reliable basis for making these connections, even if we can identify clear inclusion criteria. Beccaynr (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting, at least to me, that we have such different opinions in this debate. Nevertheless, I hope none of my contributions have strayed from civility. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Goldsztajn, I am happy to discuss this with you, it is just a little bit challenging while there is a parallel discussion happening during the AfD, although we would have swamped the discussion if we had tried to fully discuss it over there. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and consider mine. I am concerned about what some of my research found and it influences my thoughts on how we as an encyclopedia can do better, and what format will best present complex topics about people in the most encyclopedic manner (and without what may be potentially endless debates about inclusion). All that said, my best guess is a 'no consensus' close at this point, and in the future, I hope an article that explores the nuances is developed so it can be linked to the lists. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to keep my reply separate from the explicit issues of the AfD - agreed, it is better not to create (too much of) a parallel discussion here. Let me emphasise, I definitely hear what you are saying and agree that there are relevant topic-specific issues that are larger than the immediate article at hand (and extend into issues related to Wikipedia's coverage of a whole range of historical and contemporary matters). Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Jeffress

This lawyer has been involved in some interesting cases and events. I started Draft:Amy Jeffress on her but feel free to start fresh if she interests you. FloridaArmy (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FloridaArmy, thank you very much for letting me know - I conducted some preliminary research and got a ton of hits from the WP Library that helped with finding additional sources, and I have started working on the draft. Due to her wide-ranging career and the corresponding coverage, I think it will take some time to develop the article, but I plan to continue working on it. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Ehrlich

Thanks for your work on Judith Ehrlich. I nominated it for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Judith Ehrlich. I hope you don't mind. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, SL93, and thank you! I have not quite gotten the hang of DYK and I appreciate the nomination :) Beccaynr (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

Great job on Amy Jeffress. ––FormalDude talk 20:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yum and thank you, FormalDude - I'm glad to see the article move to mainspace, and the sustenance is appreciated :) Beccaynr (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in July 2022

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Maya Jayapal has been accepted

Maya Jayapal, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Missvain (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few images for your articles

While we disagree on that one article image, I strongly admire the work you've done on other articles as listed on your user page. So, here is, hopefully, a bit of help for a few of them. I hope you like them. I won't put them into the articles themselves if you don't like, since that would be the exact opposite of my goal. There might be a few more later, I'm working in the order you have listed. --GRuban (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRuban, thank you, and I hope it is clear that despite our disagreement, I appreciate your work to improve articles, including your efforts to add images. I think images can be valuable additions, but there sometimes can be issues that arise because images can be 'worth 1000 words.' My objections to the proposed Cisneros images are policy-based concerns raised in the context of the article and the content of those images. I encourage you to boldly add images to other articles and then discuss concerns on article Talk pages if objections are raised. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear! Will add these and keep going forward. Good to work with you. --GRuban (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Did those, may get to others... As Time Goes By ... --GRuban (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right, done! You had 86 articles listed under Biographies, I have now put images in 14 of them. It was fun. Looks like you're focusing on expanding information on women and/or brown people, which is something I support. I'm 99% sure I got them right, but they're here in case you want to check, for example that this is Rebecca Mammen John, even though in the source she is only referred to as Rebecca John, and that this is Ushasie Chakraborty though the source calls her Ushashi. Thank you for your contributions, hope I helped, glad you liked them. If I can help find others, please do say, though I won't be able to guarantee anything; a 10-20% hit rate is pretty much the average for me. Now back to arguing over Cisneros, where I still think it would be greatly improved with a pic! --GRuban (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, I do have concerns about some of the images, and I will express my concerns when I have time. But indeed, yes, I will first attend to one of the most disheartening and debilitating experiences I have had on Wikipedia. That you continue to post non-nuetral messages, including about me, only makes the experience that much more unpleasant. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drat. So sorry about that, my apologies, I certainly don't mean to do that. If you specify what I wrote that was so painful I'd love to rephrase it or withdraw it or something, because that is not my intent. --GRuban (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, here. This isn't such a big deal that I want to put an editor through "one of the most disheartening and debilitating experiences I have had on Wikipedia". Want me to withdraw the whole RfC? I can do that if you like. Improving an article is important, but you've written 86 articles, that's more important, if this is enough to make you dislike the whole process, say so, and I'll withdraw, there are other things we can work on. If this is causing personal trauma, we can delete everything starting from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jessica_Cisneros&diff=cur&oldid=1096772373 - since so far you and I are the only contributors. A good relationship is more important than one image. Yes, no, what? I'd just go and do it, but now worry that big gesture will hurt you more somehow. So do say. --GRuban (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you GRuban, although I actually haven't written 86 articles - my typical process is to find articles at AfD, find sources to support keeping them, and then expand the articles during or after the discussion. I highlight some of the work I have enjoyed the most on my userpage. As to the Cisneros dispute, I am reminded of an essay I read long ago about standpoints - it was related to baseball and how perspectives from each position on the field can be so different. With regard to the perspectives in this debate, I am raising significant concerns about discrimination, bias, disparagement, sexism, etc, as related to how images can communicate much more than words. I have tried to demonstrate with sources, the structure and content of the article, and based on my work as a substantial contributor to the Cisneros article, how our policies encourage us to exercise care, particularly with regard to BLPs, and this BLP in particular. I have found it difficult to experience the persistent opposition and what feels like wholesale discounting of these genuine policy-backed and evidence-supported concerns. I had mentioned earlier in the discussion that my preference would be to focus on other articles, and I do have a neverending to-do list that I would much prefer to work on. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And to more directly answer your question, GRuban, I have no objection to withdrawing the RfC, and I appreciate your empathy and understanding. I would also very much appreciate, if you feel it is necessary to make a statement about why you are withdrawing the RfC, that it be neutral and brief. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I hope! I won't mess with the 2014 internship image(s) on her article again. I did message Cisneros on her Instagram account after your request but before this and asked for a better image, so if she responds, and can release an image, I imagine you will be fine with it ...? But will run it by you to make sure. Go forth and write more articles in peace. --GRuban (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Haugen as a Democratic Party member

While it may seem like political scapegoating, the link I left does show that she donated money to the DSCC. Now, you may expect this to be another person with the same name, and it does seem like there is one in Vermont, but there is one Frances Haugen in California who did donate at three different careers, at Facebook in 2020 as a project manager, and ones before in Gigster and Pinterest. One of the donations was to Theresa Greenfield (an Iowa congress candidate) which would indicate it was the same Frances as here since she is from Iowa. The career position of Project Manager is also shown in the donation. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fierysunset, thank you for following up. Per the external links guideline, each link should be considered on its own merits, and further discussion can happen on the article Talk page. However, per WP:ELYES, the information must be accurate, and this is a primary source that does not clearly identify the subject. It also seems questionable as to whether this information is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, because there does not appear to have been secondary commentary or analysis from independent and reliable sources about it. Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID, this appears to be within #2, due to the potential to mislead the reader by describing the content as "political donations" even though it contains unverifiable research. Your analysis on the potential connections appears to be a form of original research, which is prohibited. It looks like you have opened a Talk page discussion, so this discussion can continue there. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Judith Ehrlich

On 11 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Judith Ehrlich, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Judith Ehrlich incorporated her NPR work on pacifism into a documentary focusing on conscientious objectors during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Judith Ehrlich. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Judith Ehrlich), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, I tried to remember your name to thank you for taking your time for your participation with a thorough examination and investigation and for adding your arguments centered around policies and expressing things way better than I could ever do, because I didn't have the opportunity to thank you for that in the discussion as it was strangely deleted and I was accused of vandalism. I saw your name now in the admin's message page so I wanted to thank you now. I find only one admin's overinvolvement on the matter in a manner like this problematic and erasing a good extensive discussion like this disrespectful to the users who spent their time on it. It certainly doesn't feel right but I don't really know how to appeal to this or make another admin be involved here. I'm so confused and I don't think I did anything really bad. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cantthinkausernamenow, thank you for following up. For future reference, if you disagree with the outcome of an AfD, the usual process that is encouraged is to first talk to the admin who closes the AfD on their Talk page to find out more about the reasons for their decision. It is unusual to quickly renominate an article for deletion, and we do have an appeal process if a discussion with the AfD closer does not result in the AfD being reopened for more discussion or the outcome changed. I am planning to give the closer some time to consider my request, and hopefully the discussion will be undeleted and can continue. I am sure that the closer does not intend disrespect, but I am hoping that the results of our research and the work done in the extensive discussion will be undeleted because I think this will be best for the encyclopedia. I am familiar with the appeal process, so if necessary, I will plan on asking for this situation to be reviewed. In the meantime, please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all this. It's good to see someone like you who focuses on points made instead of focusing on accusations towards the person who's trying to raise these points. Like I said in my reply to the admin in my message page, I was not aware I was not allowed to open a second nomination (and I'm still not sure about it), I certainly do not accept this vandalism accusation, I was just trying to follow the Afd guide which had an explanation for how to make a second nomination. So I followed that, I didn't see any warnings like "We're explaining the process but NEVER DO THIS OR YOU WILL BURN IN HELL", I simply tried to follow the guide to amend my fault of not being too clear in the first nomination, because that was the main argument there. And thank you for your plan and efforts with the appeal process, I hope others can see what's wrong here. I strongly feel erasing an extensive discussion like that is not right. Thanks for all your help. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, and you have started in an area on Wikipedia that can be challenging to navigate. There is even a pending ArbCom case about Conduct in deletion-related editing that raises a variety of issues, including abuse by spammers. I will likely put together an appeal tomorrow, and I will add a notification to your Talk page after it is posted. Beccaynr (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I saw your appeal now, it's good to see everyone is able to see that such a deletion of a discussion was wrong. Am I allowed to comment there btw? Because I want to clarify some things.
Someone still saying something like "created for vandalistic purposes but then updated and contributed to" and making it look like I did it for vandalism bothers me especially when I explained myself a few times already.
Also they say "starting a new AfD with the same rationale", "with the same arguments", I explained already it was not "same rationale" and "same arguments", they said I didn't state a valid reason in first nomination so I opened it again to try with a better and clearer rationale.
They say "after they were strongly rejected", "just because they don't like the result", There was no "strongly rejection" either. There was not a proper discussion because they said I wasn't clear with my reason. It's not "because I don't like the result", like I said already, I was trying to amend my fault with the first nomination. I don't think anyone can call the first nomination "strongly rejected", especially when it's evaluated on an argument basis instead of only counting votes. Because I might not be too clear initially but I tried to reply with valid arguments and reasonings during discussion. It seems like these were just ignored by the closer admin. I don't feel their overinvolvement on the matter is appropriate either.
Anyway since I don't know if I'm allowed to comment there and don't want to be accused with vandalism again by doing that, I'm posting this here instead. I hope they see it and stop saying that I did it for vandalism. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cantthinkausernamenow, you are allowed to participate in the discussion, and it is encouraged for editors who have been involved in the AfDs to identify how they have been involved. However, I do not see anyone in the discussion agreeing that your second nomination was vandalism, and the comment you mention seems more like a general statement than directed specifically at you (although I understand how it can feel like that after what you have experienced). Other comments include "it wasn't vandalism" but there are some concerns expressed about disruption. In rapid renominations I have seen, there generally are comments about it from other participants in the discussion, and it is possible to close them as a speedy keep to help address disruption to the AfD process. One of the reasons AfD can be challenging to navigate is that we have a lot of policies, guidelines, and norms, including to be careful to not bludgeon the process, which I think applies generally to how rapid renominations may be perceived, but also specifically to attempts to address every point in a discussion.
Also, I have been hoping the AfD history would be temporarily undeleted so everyone can see the differences, but based on how the discussion is going, it looks like there will be consensus for the AfD to be undeleted, and then it will all be much more clear. I think the one question that remains is whether the AfD will be speedily kept after it is undeleted. As I noted in the discussion, I do not think the speedy keep criteria apply here, but we operate by consensus and the current consensus does not seem to strongly favor this outcome. If there is a speedy keep, I will consider either appealing that outcome or renominating the article in the future, but for now, I encourage you to consider the limits of the DRV forum and whether your contribution can specifically help support overturning the deletion if you choose to participate. I feel like this is a very long answer to your question, and please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were so helpful and friendly. Thanks for all the insight. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey Bec, how is my translations? I mean Hayfa Baytar. I never educated English structured, just some courses, web, movies, and techs made my English. Ruwaym (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruwaym, I think your translations are very good, and thank you so much for all of your work to expand the Hayfa Baytar article. I made some grammar copyedits to add articles to the structure of sentences, and please let me know either on my Talk page or the article Talk page if you have any questions about any of my edits. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open Markets Institute

Hello! Last month, I started a draft for the Open Markets Institute. It looks like something that might be of interest to you. All the best, Thriley (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thriley, thank you for letting me know - I reviewed sources in the article and searched a bit online, but I am not confident that there is enough independent sourcing to support WP:NONPROFIT at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh darn. I imagine there may be more coverage as the year goes on. Thank you very much for checking. Thriley (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I hadn't noticed till too late you weren't allowed to revert me earlier. About halfway in, I honestly thought you simply wanted to see if you could make me do it, so probably took a more "combative" or "competitive" approach than you really deserved (bit sarcastic, too, in spots). So, sorry again.

Enjoy the rest of your time on Wikipedia, in simplicity and complexity, just maybe try to get the "Why?" of any mutual avoidance issues across a bit sooner, eh? Good luck with the article! And yes, matched against me, you are the expert, on all that being of the construction and experiences of a woman or girl can relate to entailing, absolutely no contest. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, InedibleHulk, although I just thought I was once again missing some kind of joke, and I am sorry that I did not fully explain why I was asking. I do have a bit of a social science background, at least enough to make me comfortable with the literature, but I always appreciate collaborative feedback. Thank you for your good wishes, and same to you, Beccaynr (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You probably did miss a lot of that WMF joke, it was designed to stir up at least five layers of deeply carny knowledge; I'd wager even most hardcore wrestling editors couldn't catch 'em all. Nobody knows why I tend to try those on complete novices, seems so inappropriate, but I do. Some "higher power" to blame, I suppose. Anyway, if it helps you feel more comfortable with my lowbrow literature, "going over" is winning, "doing the job" is losing, "going home" is any old ending and what's "best for business" is a lot of things. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh! That is funny! And thank you for explaining, InedibleHulk, I always appreciate the opportunity to expand my vocabulary and to be better prepared for the next joke. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in August 2022

Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Draft:T. Geenakumari

Hello, Beccaynr,

This draft is going to be deleted soon as a CSD G13 and I thought I'd let you know after looking at the page history. Should it be deleted and you want to continue working on it, you can request restoration at WP:REFUND. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Liz - I periodically attempted to update this article, but other than adding a work and reference, I was not able to find more, and did not get to a point where it seemed reasonable to return the article to mainspace. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Heidi Saadiya

Hello sir, I'm a new Wikipedia editor. I saw your edits on Robin Wonsley. Can you please help me to expand Draft:Heidi Saadiya? see. She is Kerala's first transwoman broadcast journalist. There are lot of articles about her on the internet. There is a similar article Padmini Prakash, first transgender journalist from India. Imperfect Boy (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Imperfect Boy, I have started research, and I am looking for sustained coverage about her career that extends beyond the 2019/2020 sources in the article. This 2020 Hindustan Times article offers some additional context, and she also received coverage in The Indian Express in 2019. She is also discussed by SheThePeople in 2019. Thank you for bringing this article and the Padmini Prakash article to my attention, and please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Can you help me to expand the article? Imperfect Boy (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Imperfect Boy, I noticed that you have moved this article from draft to mainspace, and it was then tagged for notability concerns by Theroadislong. I suggest that you undo this and return the article to a draft, so it can continue to be developed. We are looking for support from independent and reliable sources according to the notability guideline for people, which for this article subject, may be the WP:BASIC section, and/or the WP:JOURNALIST section. You may also want to ask for help at the LGBT Studies Wikiproject. However, to help prevent this article from being deleted before it has a chance to be further developed, I encourage you to return it to a draft for now. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr, I've moved back the Heidi Saadiya to Draft space. Thank you -Imperfect Boy (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Githa Hariharan

Content you restored from an old revision in the above article appears to have been copied from https://githahariharan.com/?p=1552, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some content had to be removed. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Diannaa, I have been working on citing and expanding this article, and had not yet closely reviewed her website. However, I had found copyvio from this website, which I had also inadvertantly restored today [1] and was then trying to fix during my expansion of the article after I found the source. I did realize I needed to review the procedures, and I apologize for not being more clear in my edit summaries about what I was copyediting and for not immediately requesting revdel. Should I make a more detailed request at the article Talk page or at WP:CP? Thank you again for your assistance. Beccaynr (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the content still in the article? If it is, you could list it at WP:CP. Or, you could remove it, and then request revision deletion. To do revision deletion, we need to know with which edit the content was added, and the edit where it was removed. — Diannaa (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Diannaa - for my own notes, I found the introduction of copyvio from her website and elsewhere at this diff, which was then removed as 'sourced to her own website' [2], then restored by the original editor [3], continued to remain today [4], and I also inadvertantly partially restored [5], before the revision deletion today. Before the revdel, I attempted to clean what I had first found, and the fixed version remains in the article. Since then, I found more copyvio from her website that had been added with the first content from her website, and cleaned it [6]. I also plan to check other content that I have not yet reviewed. Thank you again! Beccaynr (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock

Hi - I saw your SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man. The sock behavior you describe matches that of the nominator of two articles I wrote: Ragy Thomas and Bev (company). New editor, series of minor edits to get autoconfirmed, all reverted by others, and then after a month, takes two articles to AfD with Twinkle, and shows a more than basic familiarity with common deletion arguments used there. I think the Bev nomination is a smokescreen; the target is the Ragy Thomas article, which was targeted two years ago by a India-POV-pushing sock farm. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Electiondata/Archive. Is it possible that the nom is part of this? Might the obvious sock keeps also be related, in order to discredit other keeps? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timtempleton, when I Google Translated their username, "POV-pushing sock farm" wasn't exactly it, but it was close. And a precocious new user found two obscure articles that you, who had previously reported a sock farm, happened to create, and you are concerned there may be some pump priming occuring by other new accounts. I am also concerned about possible signs of an WP:SPASOCK given your description of possible gaming behavior (all of the minor edits to get autoconfirmed reverted by others). I think the totality of the circumstances supports asking for a CU. Beccaynr (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a little tricky. I didn't open a sock investigation because I don't have clear proof who the other sock(s) is/are, but it's clearly not a new editor. I doubt politely asking them to give me the name of their previous account will work. I'm keeping an eye on his/her future edits, and will drop a warning on their talk page if they keep getting reverted or starting time-wasting AfDs. And BTW - thanks for the Bev (company) source hunt. I'll review and see if there's additional info I can add to the article.TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtempleton @Beccaynr if you are asking why I'm here and why I know some basic stuff, it's because, as you mentioned here, my edits were reverted and I took a month to read the guidelines. I found out that it's almost impossible to create a new articles as the guidelines are so strict. And then, I found quite obscure and not notable articles of Timpeleton. Which are kind of COI and PAID. Let's the community decide what to do with them. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not swayed with this weak explanation. Very sock-like. The question is, which farm is the user part of? I was hoping they would send other socks again and burn them all. Do you want to open the CU, as an impartial party? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 12:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtempleton what sock farm are you talking about? The sock was defending your article and was blocked. It was a coincidence? 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello folks. FYI user 多少 战场 龙 crossed paths with me at WP:Articles for deletion/UP Halcyon (2nd nomination), then they tried to subtly canvass me to !vote delete in the two AfD for Timtempleton's articles. It's all very fishy for a "new user" who was until a week ago merely doing simple Wikilink edits. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in September 2022

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241


Online events:


Request for help:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

More