User talk:Beccaynr

Archives (Index)

2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/August 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July 2024/August

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		In an ANI case filled with armchair critics, you went through my articles for clear problems, did the work of fixing them, and presented them constructively and in good faith - I have the utmost respect for you for that! I only wish it could've been sooner lol (on talk/mainspace as opposed to ANI). I'd hoped we could continue collaborating on fixing up the KJK article more (I'd wanted to wiki-gnome the article and present you some new sources on the Hope not Hate report), but regardless I hope to collaborate with you more in future wherever we may cross paths again! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, TheTranarchist, and I am glad you are focused on the future and seeking ideas to support your ongoing development as an editor. I am drafting a list of ideas for you, although I anticipate being mostly off-wiki for the next few days to attend to some off-wiki tsuris. But in the meantime, my first idea is "Read more than you write," as in the policies, guidelines, essays, and various discussion boards - I have a collection on my userpage that you may wish to review. Thank you again for your courage, perseverance, and resilience, because this will serve you well here in all that you do. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for the list, I eagerly await it and hope your off wiki tsuris are resolved! Also, I skimmed but will completely read through the essays and misc you've linked by tonight! Generally, most of my Wiki-time is spent reading lol, even when writing articles the most time spent is reading through up to hundreds of sources and assessing their reliability and weight. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2023

Women in Red Apr 2023, Vol 9, Iss 4, Nos 251, 252, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266 Online events: New: Gender studies | Health | Dance | Alphabet run S & T | Books by women Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman | See also: Women in Red is supporting Every Book Its Reader through our Books by women event. Tip of the month: When writing about a book, check WP:NBOOK for notability, then see MOS:NOVEL, WP:NONFICTION or WP:POETRYSTANDARDS for guidance. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Contentious topics replace discretionary sanctions

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull Talk

Hi

I have brought this here because the wall of words is just becoming background noise to me and there seems to be a bad atmosphere developing in places.

I don't know if you recall my contribution to the talk here (mentioning Rallies, speaker events, and protests)?

If not can you have a look and see if you think there is any potential in what I suggest for improving the article.

If you do is any collaboration possible to try and put something together that will be encyclopaedic and work for as many people as possible who have taken the trouble to be involved in the discussion?

No worries if you don't fancy but thought I'd ask. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lukewarmbeer, thank you for your note - I do recall the contribution you mention, and I have not yet had a chance to reply - I will try to respond later, but it will still be a bit before I have the opportunity to fully focus on it. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

I though I'd run this past you. I have picked one paragraph as an example. I don't think our text reflects the sources at all.

The one sided selection of words, particularly when added to the overkill of the 20 other rallies we describe, is why I don't think we have done a good job with this.

I'm putting this here for you because I have the feeling you are also interested in 'our' encyclopaedic integrity and I'm hoping we could be constructive with this. If I start this as a section on the talk without getting the thing into better shape first we will end up with the polarity meter going off the scale again and get nowhere.

I have found that being bold isn't always welcome :) but I'm happy to have a go and try to revise this section - with some assistance!

When you get a mo let me know what you think.

== Rallies, speaker events, and protests ==

Our text on one particular rally.

On 5 February 2023, Keen organised a "Let Women Speak" protest in Glasgow's George Square in response to the passage of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and the Isla Bryson case; hundreds of protesters and counterprotestors attended, and the counterprotestors were organised by the Cabaret Against The Hate Speech.This next is a classic example of why I am unhappy with how this article has developed.

That paragraph has three citations:

One from The Pink news is really an opinion piece and bears no relation to the news coverage of the other two but has given our text most of it's 'thrust' The headline....

"Cis woman interrupts anti-trans protest and instantly becomes an icon: ‘Trans women are women!’"

One, far more balanced and new reporting type article from The National That portrays the rally from both sides.

"Glasgow gender critical rally met with trans activist counter-protest"

One from the Herald - I'd say more

"Hundreds join rally against gender recognition reforms" Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lukewarmbeer, thank you, and I am sorry that I have not been able to engage as quickly as I had hoped. I added a (probably difficult to find) comment in the midst of a discussion section [1] addressed to you about structuring discussion on the article Talk page, before article editing became unusually busy (you can check the edit history of the article to review what happened). I think it is best to have separate sections about specific issues on the article Talk page, not only to help navigate discussions, but also so other editors can participate.

For example, if you would like to discuss a concern about how many rallies are included in the article, I encourage you to create a new section about this one issue. This way, we can all review the sources, policies such as WP:DUE and the WP:RS guideline. But as a quick note, the sources for this graf:

On 5 February 2023, Keen organised a "Let Women Speak" protest in Glasgow's George Square in response to the passage of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and the Isla Bryson case; hundreds of protesters and counterprotestors attended, and the counterprotestors were organised by the Cabaret Against The Hate Speech.

do not include the Pink News Manchester coverage as a citation, although other Pink News coverage is included as one of the three cites (and the only source that appears to identify this as a "Let Women Speak" event, which is another issue that has been raised on the talk page during a discussion about whether and how to split the article).

Overall, I do not think it is helpful for discussions generally to mix in other issues that are discussed elsewhere on the Talk page. I think our best path towards constructive discussion is to have focused discussion on specific issues whenever possible. I appreciate the care you are taking with your approach to editing, and I encourage you to continue participating in discussion on the article Talk page so these various issues can continue to be addressed collaboratively. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Will do. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

One more thing while I am here - do you think it would be better to let the current issues subside / be resolved before starting another? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you should do what you feel comfortable with - editors are clearly paying attention to this article, and moving part of a discussion to a separate section could help focus attention on issues that have otherwise been mixed into other discussions.

If I have time and energy today, I may open a section and pin it to the top of the Talk page as an addendum to the FAQ, to try to corral one of the ongoing discussions happening across multiple sections into one place. I mention this because something like this may help you feel more comfortable with opening a separate section to address a specific issue. I think overall, there is a history of constructive collaboration on this article, and I would like to figure out what more can be done to facilitate effective communication about sources, policies, and guidelines. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Will keep an eye. Away for a couple of weeks on Saturday so may leave until I return.

All the best.

LWB Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Your use of sources/references

This is an odd request, but do you use a specialized tool or trick to organizing your sources? You recently posted a list of sources on an RfC we are both involved in, and it was nicely formatted and had dates, etc. I was just curious if you had advice for organizing long lists of sources, since you make it look effortless lol.

Take care!

Awshort (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Awshort, it has taken some trial-and-error for me to develop a format for source lists, and I tend to use colons and asterisks; if you use the edit button for the page, you can view how I line them up. I tend to start with an asterisk for the start of my comment, and then to list sources beneath them, use :* before each listed source, and : to add a final comment and my signature (or only my signature on a separate line beneath the list. For me, the key is to use the preview feature to check how it looks before publishing, to make sure there are no extra spaces, etc.

As a caveat, I have some concerns that my formatting may not be compliant with the advice in the WP:COLAS essay about how to format for people who use screen readers, so I have been considering how to adjust my formatting.

As to dates/etc, my standard approach is to enclose the publication and date in parentheses, preferably with a wikilink for the publication, although if it is a source that has been found unreliable at WP:RSP with its own entry link, I might include that. And then I copy everything to my clipboard, because it can take me so long to write and format everything that there is sometimes an edit conflict in the meantime, so it helps to have it easily available for reposting after re-opening the page in a new tab.

But some of this is an art, not a science. As an example, for the text you struck from a recent discussion (16:34, 5 April 2023), I might have reformatted/rephrased/added to it as follows:

Some key policies and guidelines worth noting that are related include WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The WP:NPF section of WP:BLP policy includes exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. [this could be where to list high-quality secondary sources about the suspect/defendant]

It also seems relevant that WP:BLP1E notes The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. [this could be where to list persistent coverage of the suspect/defendant in reliable sources]

WP:BLPNAME is also relevant, because I think the coverage shows the name has been widely disseminated and not including their name would result in a significant loss of context. [the significant loss of context needs explanation; for example, you could list local coverage (Dec. 1, 2022) and Fox News coverage (Dec. 1, 2022) of statements by the defendant's attorneys and then explain per WP:BLPNAME how this coverage requires naming the defendant to add significant value to the article]

Also, in the WP:HARM#TEST section of the Avoiding harm essay, there are factors supporting inclusion of the name that seem to apply, including 1) coverage in mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, 2) circumstances where a person has been charged with a crime, and 3) this is an event article. This essay also says WP:NPOV policy does not support "do no harm" removal.

Of course, you have asked for guidance from someone who is also trying to work on condensing their own comments, and to not overquote policies, guidelines, etc. I encourage you to keep at it - you are engaging with the sources and a wide array of applicable policies, guidelines and potentially relevant essays, and I think it takes time to adjust to the discussion formats and norms. Please feel free to let me know if you have questions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki-love and request for review

Some kittens for you!

Hi Beccaynr, I hope you've been doing well! Sending some wiki-love kittens since 1) you seem to have a lot going on IRL and 2) it seems you've been busy with a lot of tiring stuff on wikipedia as well.

If you've got the time, and no rush, I'd really appreciate your thoughts on the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board! It was in a sorry state when I first found it and read like an advert; I've done a lot to improve it since, but it needs some polishing and could do with a review. I'd like to get that and the CHTU article up to a B at least!

Also, I'd appreciate your ideas for new articles to work on after these! My next couple are going to be related to housing rights in NY and also fixing up the various RevCom articles since they all seem to have a plethora of issues lol. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi TheTranarchist and thank you for the kittens! I have not been able to do as much as I would like on Wikipedia lately, but I am happy to offer some general feedback on Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, although this is based on a quick review. Overall, this article is progressing very nicely and looks like it has a bounty of strong sources to support further development. There are various details that raise a few guideline issues that I think are generally helpful to consider, so here are my thoughts as I had them while generally reviewing the article:

The first thing that stood out to me is a MOS:INTRO issue, because the line "They are an influential proponent of urban homesteading" seems potentially to be the kind of peacock language that should be avoided in favor of more specific descriptive language about what the organization does that is influential. Information from the sources can be used to 'show, not tell.' And per MOS:LEAD, the information for the lead should be drawn from the main article in a summary style, with appropriate weight.

Another issue is a possible MOS:WEASEL issue in the "UHAB has been criticized by some tenants for poor work on renovations" line. Whether this should be in the lead is separate question from how this likely could be more precisely phrased if it remains in the lead.

Also, the lead does not seem to need so many citations. MOS:CITELEAD offers more guidance about how to develop a more balanced approach. And per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the dissertation is likely a primary source and should therefore be used in a more limited manner (it appears to usually be an excess reference, so limiting the use of this source could be a way to help reduce some overciting generally; WP:BUNDLING citations may also be helpful).

And as a general issue, which may be the most time-intensive, I encourage you to review the text-source integrity guideline. This is something I have planned to generally suggest for you to consider - I think of citing each sentence as crucial when rapidly developing articles with multiple editors, but I also think it is a good habit when constructing articles - it can give you more flexibility when rearranging, editing, and adding text.

So these are my thoughts for now, and other editors may have different perspectives, but these are guidelines that I generally think about when constructing or reconstructing articles. And please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review!!!

For the peacocking in the lead, I agree, I was worried about that. On the other hand, multiple sources did name them as a primary / one of the primary proponents of homesteading and sweat equity, I'll try and make it more specific and note what they've done specifically.

For the criticism part specifically, I was also worried that was overly vague, but unsure how to balance summary with brevity, so I'll try and make it more precise. A few sources have noted criticism in various buildings/projects, and previously the article worked hard to downplay the criticism so may have prejudiced me to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction lol. Do you think I should add a criticism section and add relevant details there / split relevant ones from the body? I imagine that'll also help craft the lead sentence and make it follow the body more.

For the overciting in the lead, bit of a bad habit from GENSEX, I'm used to having to make sure every statement is cited extremely well lol. Relatedly, I'll cut down on the dissertation citations: I was worried about them, but they provided some of the most SIGCOV and had shown use by others, so I erred on the side of inclusion (for some reason there were also dozens of masters theses on them that were informative but obviously discountable).

Thanks for pointing out WP:TSI and WP:BUNDLING! I hadn't seen those before but glad to know them (though I wish I'd come across the former sooner since that's certainly a recurring issue on my part on reflection, I've tended to summarize multiple sources in a paragraph cited to them in most articles I've written). I'm about to get to work on the improvements, thanks again for the pointers! Best, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Overall, my sense is there is a fair amount of potential to expand this article with greater detail, and this can address various guideline-related issues. As to a criticism section for this article, I suggest reviewing the WP:STRUCTURE section of WP:NPOV policy, which seems to encourage incorporation into the main text; there is also the WP:CRIT essay with more nuanced opinions. My concern about these types of sections also include how they can break up the narrative or chronological flow of an article.

Also, as more detail emerges from sources, this will influence how much weight gets accorded in the lead and how the article is ultimately structured (this article may benefit from sections related to eras of the organization's history? subsections for major projects?). I also haven't looked closely at the dissertation but did want to flag it for additional review. And I am glad you appreciate the WP:TSI guideline - I think more closely citing your sources will help bolster the strength of your encyclopedic writing. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Beccaynr, hope you've been doing well! I've been busy with finals (graduating in a few weeks!) and haven't had time to edit as much lately, but I just nearly finished off the UHAB article in line with your advice. I'd appreciate your thoughts on what's necessary to take it to a B or greater from here!

Some additional notes for context:

• I cited the UHAB website per WP:ABOUTSELF to note their executive director changed a few months ago (I'm trying to track down the original executive director)
• I added some images I thought relevant to polish the article a little.
• I think a few sentences can stand to be better cited according to WP:TSI, I'll re-review for that when I get the chance. I already got most of them and dealt with the overciting and the dissertation citation though.
• There's a few additional details I need to include. Not major enough they'd change the lead, but notable enough for the body.
  • Their help setting up the CHTU, some collaborations with Russian housing activists, sponsorship of some notable programs, and a bit more context for the creation of TIL, CMP, and TPT (which were all programs from the Division of Alternative Management (DAMP), so I need to find the source explicitly connecting them).
  • Details of criticisms from tenants. Within the RS there are many instances noting criticisms they received at individual buildings. I need to review them and collate them to figure out how to include them, because I feel it's a notable enough pattern to be included, but many of the buildings are not notable enough themselves to be due in the article.
    • I'm thinking of making a reception section to cover that and their reception generally, as many notable figures and RS have given their thoughts on UHAB.
  • Additionally, they used to be on the board of / sponsor City Limits (New York magazine). I've struggled to find a non-primary independent source that notes that sadly. I've erred on the side of caution, as I'm unsure about whether city limits qualifies as a RS and how primary and aboutself deals with sponsors of publications. Do you think it would acceptable to note they were initial sponsors if only old city limits magazines acknowledge it? Either way, I'll try and track down some independent sources noting it.

Looking forward to your advice! Best, regards TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi! And thank you, I am slowly getting back to Wikipedia, and congrats on your upcoming graduation! I think the restructuring of the article works quite well, and as I begin to review sources, I notice sources with information that may be helpful to further contextualize the organization. For example, in The Long Crisis (Google preview), the first chapter includes data about the scale of abandoned apartments in the late 1960s (pp. 20-21) as well as information and data about "the flurry of grassroots, low-income housing organizations that formed in the late 1960s and early 1970s." (pp. 21-22). Other similar organizations are noted in this chapter as well, including the People's Development Corporation (pp. 20-21) and the Phoenix Cooperative of Harlem (pp. 24-?). The preview ends there, and I will work on figuring out access to a more complete copy of this source, but situating this organization in the context of the circumstances in which it emerged could be a helpful addition. This article explains what they have accomplished, but adding more depth about the context seems to be part of the narrative that sources are highlighting, including the CUNY law review article (e.g. pp. 249-251), and could perhaps be incorporated into a Background (or similarly-titled) section at the beginning of the body of the article.

As a small note, I added an example of a page number template to the law review source - I don't think sources are needed in the first sentence to identify the organization, so the sources could be removed, but page numbers are needed to identify where information is sourced from sources with page numbers.

I also think 'advocacy' may be too limited a description based on their activities - maybe 'assistance' could be added? I have not reviewed everything closely enough to have a firm opinion, only a general sense that that there may be a broader way to describe the organization in the first sentence.

Also, I tend to think Reception sections work well for subjects such as books, but can interfere with the chronological narrative for other topics, and that may be an issue here. I suggest first incorporating criticism into the body of the article and any response from the organization. There can be a NPOV issue with separating out certain types of criticism from the body of the article, and from my view, if it breaks up the chronology, there is also an issue of increasing the cognitive load on readers, who then need to go back and forth between sections to identify when and where the criticism was aimed.

As to the question about only having City Limits claim the organization as a sponsor, I would avoid including this per WP:SELFSOURCE (claim about third parties) unless you have confirmation from an independent and reliable source and/or UHAB itself confirming this. It also seems to be a detail that may not be particularly relevant without more robust sourcing about the significance.

These are my first thoughts, and I would like to explore the adverse possession issues raised in the 2001-present section. I have not yet closely reviewed the sources, but I am interested in what happened to these claims and I have access to a legal database that may offer further sources. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Just finished a final paper so have some time to edit today! I'm going to do some minor updates to UHAB: I checked out "The Tenant Movement in New York City, 1904-1984" (1986) from my school library a week ago and initially thought it didn't contain much relevant info about UHAB, but then discovered the index was not exhaustive... Bookmarked the relevant sections while reading through it. Between getting engrossed with UHAB, my finals, and my albatross making editing difficult, time's almost run out for the Core Contest so after those edits I'll try and focus on Tenants union (when not focused on finals) for the next 3 weeks.

Responding to the points you raised:

• More context is a great idea! Given the long tenure of UHAB I'd say a "background" section right before "founding", with the details of emergence would be good. A paragraph in the "Activities (2001-Present)" section may be called for to account for the financial crisis and predatory equity, and perhaps one in the "(1974-2000)" section which would cover the larger context of their incorporation into the city (since quite a few sources seemed to speak on that as a turning point for both city and UHAB).
• In terms of other small groups, the PDC is definitely called for and appears often. I believe I've only seen the Phoenix Cooperative in one source. The Renigades are repeatedly mentioned as a notable group they worked with early on. In terms of larger orgs, Adopt-A-Building, the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development, the Pratt Institute, and NYC's DAMP are called for as they frequently collaborated with UHAB.
• The Long Crisis is available via the Wikipedia Library's Oxford Academic collection (though annoyingly only 1 chapter at a time, though I suppose it would be quick work to collate the chapter PDFs with the appropriate software)
• I'll revisit advocacy, it is vague and could stand to be more detailed. I added it since the NYT has consistently used it to refer to UHAB for years, decades if memory serves, and it seemed a good placeholder.

I found the following description here while searching for documentation of the city limits connection: UHAB, which remains squarely in the housing sector, organizing tenant associations in subsidized housing, assisting existing tenant co-operatives, and taking advantage of opportunities to develop new tenant cooperatives in foreclosed or city-owned buildings

• Good point about the reception section, as we fill in more details it'll be easier to integrate the criticism throughout the body.
• WRT to city limits I found the following sources:

Vista Currents (1979) p. 8: City Limits is published by Pratt Institute, the Association for Neighborhood Development, and the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board. City Limits is geared to housing issues specifically related to low- and moderate-income persons. Written for a New York audience...

People Power: What Communities are Doing to Counter Inflation (1980) p.175: [UHAB] assists the Association of Neighborhood Housing Developers ... in the publication of the magazine City Limits.

Additionally, City Limits (2016) is an article on their organizations history where they state In September 1978, two of Schur’s allies—Ron Shiffman at Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development and Philip St. Georges at the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board—decided that their organizations and the movement would be better served if they took the funds they were spending on their own publications and merged them with ANHD’s. Each organization would contribute $5,000 each year. City Limits, they agreed, would function as an independent enterprise, without editorial interference from its sponsors. Schur and his co-sponsors believed strongly that the movement needed its own watchdog. ... In late 2009, City Limits became a project of the Community Service Society of New York

I think the first two sources justify inclusion, I'm not sure if their corroboration means the third could be cited for the additional details 1) the magazine was to be independent (I'll try and find an indep source for that) and 2) it was purchased in 2009.

Best, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Nice! One aspect of the research that can also be kept track of, perhaps in a sandbox, is for organizations such as the PDC that may also have WP:NONPROFIT notability - and if there is not enough for a standalone article, a section could be created in a related main article. And I just found City Limits (New York magazine), which would benefit from expansion.

It will probably be the weekend before I can fully refocus on this project and the research - including ideally finding more law review articles, but also generally looking at the caselaw. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

interlude

Thank you for the in-depth response! I just got dragged back to ANI and therefore have run out of time and mental bandwidth for a more in-depth reply, but I'll try and incorporate your advice and get back to you in the coming days. Best, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Hi TheTranarchist, I am aware and quite sorry to see you back at ANI. I know you are dedicated to improving as an editor, and I am happy to work with you when I can. In the meantime, for whatever it is worth, I think you raise some reasonable points at ANI about the TBAN policy as applied to your edit (and I have been reviewing it), but I do not think what you reverted constitutes obvious vandalism. I have more thoughts, but should probably post them to ANI to stay on the sunny side of your TBAN. In the meantime, I look forward to us both having the time and focus to dive into some obscure legal issues and history to help build the UHAB article. Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for your improvements to the Yasmine Seale page! Appreciate ya! --fellow educator Wikipedian

Jackie.salzinger (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Jackie.salzinger, and for creating her page! I learned so much from reviewing her career and I look forward to learning more as she continues to translate and write. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2023

Women in Red May 2023, Vol 9, Iss 5, Nos 251, 252, 267, 268, 269, 270 Online events: New: Alphabet run U, V, W | Disability | Women in Education | CEE women Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman | See also: Wikimedia CEE Spring 2023/CEE Women - Wikimedia contest with postcards and prizes The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th Tip of the month: Use the Google translate app and camera on your phone to translate text from an article or book Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

AfD

Hi

My vote was precautionary, having already seen contributors who launch an AfD but remain neutral or change their minds and support conservation. Panam2014 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Panam2014, thank you for following up - according to WP:AFDFORMAT, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this", so I interpreted your AfD nomination of Poupette Kenza as support for deletion, and the bolded !vote as a duplicate. Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

John Money

Hi. I added John Money back to the lede of Gender. I'm letting you know because after I did it I realized that the presence of John Money in the lede had been subject to previous editing by you, and you may have interest in the state of that section of the lede. Born25121642 (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Born25121642 - I reverted the addition with a basic edit summary, but we can talk about this more on the article Talk page, because I do not think the sources and article content support adding Money to the lead. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. RossButsy (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi RossButsy, I have left a more detailed edit summary in my second removal of the content, and per WP:BRD and WP:BLPRESTORE, encourage you to continue discussing this disputed content on the Talk page of the article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I encourage you to closely remember three revert rule not sure how or why you’d call that original research. Since you’ve clearly taken issue with the sources being conservative based I’ve found a liberal source detailing exactly what the other two sources already did. RossButsy (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

My recent edit summary [2] states: "Rm per WP:BLPRESTORE - this content is not supported by this questionable source (WP:RS/P) and appears to be WP:OR and contrary to WP:NPOV." At WP:RS/P, there is a section for The Washington Times. Beccaynr (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Like I said already I recognise sky news Australia and the Washington times might be impartial. So I’ve found multiple liberal sources that won’t and don’t fall under a questionable source. RossButsy (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

And I tried to rebut your suggestion that I have "clearly taken issue with the sources being conservative based" with evidence of what I wrote, with additional detail to help focus discussion on policies, guidelines, and sources. From my view, this has nothing to do with "conservative" or "liberal" sources, but instead is a question of whether sources are reliable according to our guidelines and policies, and whether the article content is supported by the sources and our policies. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

If you rebut then I apologise, but the entire mulvaney article uses sources from traditionally legacy left wing based sources that much is true. Whether you think it is or isn’t you can’t deny the consistency of the article doesn’t include sources that have been contentious with regard to the situation.[3] this being abc based is consistent with the article. RossButsy (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

That source is not ABC News - it is by the The National Desk, produced by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which appears to be a questionable source, especially for claims about living people. And from my view, the Dylan Mulvaney article has a range of sources listed as generally reliable at WP:RS/P, e.g. the WP:LATIMES, WP:WAPO, NBC News, WP:NYTIMES, WP:VARIETY, and The Times. We need reliable sources to support content, which also helps assess whether it is WP:DUE to include in an article, and when considering WP:BLP policy, especially for contentious claims. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

A photo for you

Tracy Lee Stum in 2021

As a peace offering, since I see you have this article linked on your user page as a rescue, so presumably it is important to you. Not putting the image in the article, since I recognize you might not think it is a good one, in which case that would be the exact opposite of my goal. Hope you like it, and will put it in the article or tell me that I can; if not, I shan't. --GRuban (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Akil Kumarasamy in 2022

Another, similarly, with my compliments. --GRuban (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, GRuban, and I would like to emphasize how I always assume your good faith, even when we disagree, and going forward, I would appreciate it if you would help keep discussions focused by assuming mine. But as to the content issues, as I noted in our recent discussion, I think there is a need for particular care to be taken with user-generated images of nonpublic figures in BLPs. From my view, there is a tension between the general goal to illustrate articles and the various protections for nonpublic figures outlined in BLP policy. So I try to think about how to approach this issue in an objective manner before considering subjective aspects - in my experience working in contentious topics, objective guidance seems to often provide our most constructive path forward.

And I share your frustration with obtaining freely-licensed images from BLP subjects - before my recent flare of health challenges, I had been working on drafting a donation pitch for images based on the many examples available and our various policies. But this had less to do with an interest in illustrating articles than in trying to protect BLP subjects from what I think are poor-quality or nonrepresentative free images.

I'm not comfortable pitching to an article subject that there is a risk of a poor image being used unless they release a better image to us - the similar issue raised at WT:BLP with regard to subjects potentially feeling compelled to release images to avoid cartoon portraits being used in articles has got me thinking more about the kind of protections a nonpublic BLP subject may be entitled to with regard to images. It is a consistent theme in the encyclopedia that we don't include everything, and even if something is available, we do not necessarily include it. At this point, I am continuing to think about these issues, but my current capacity to launch a major community discussion is limited, and I have a different pending WT:BLP discussion that I hope to focus on in the meantime.

As to Tracy Lee Stum, the article is listed on my userpage as a rescue because I produced sources during the AfD, and is a reminder to myself to incorporate sources so the article has greater depth and notability is more clearly apparent. Subjectively, the image appears to be a nice, smiling picture that more clearly identifies her than the person-in-hat image currently in the infobox. I am more ambivalent about the Akil Kumarasamy image, I think because of my general sense that in-the-midst-of-speaking screenshots are not necessarily the most appropriate images for us to be tacking to the top of search results associated with her name.

From a policy standpoint, I think nonpublic figures may need to have greater weight assigned to subjective concerns about images, even though they have technically participated in a video. But as I said, I recognize the competing goals and potential for disagreement on these issues, particularly in case-by-case considerations for individual images, as well as how broadly our policies and guidelines tend to be written to provide us with flexibility, editorial discretion, and room for common sense. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response; but I'm afraid I couldn't quite parse the end result! I'm an engineer, which may be considered a mental handicap. You agree that the Stum image is good for that article and aren't sure about the Kumarasamy one? (For what it's worth, when I did a Google search for "Akil Kumarasamy" just now, the first images of her that I found were, in fact, screenshots of videos of her in the middle of speaking!) Cutting to the chase, would you object if I added them both? Unlike the other place, if you object, I won't add them. --GRuban (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

My own perspective is shaped by experience as a lawyer and educator (which I note in my userboxes to try to offer some explanation for my own analytical approaches), which sometimes means a lot of explanation for a tl;dr of "I don't know at this time." But I have no objection to the Stum image replacing the person-in-hat image in the infobox, and I think the person-in-hat image could be moved elsewhere in the article because it depicts her engaged in her art. As to Kumarasamy, I could object, but I would also not foresee consensus agreeing with me based on the quality of the image, the recent discussion that led you here, and how policies and guidelines seem to typically be interpreted. So as a practical matter, while I do object to its inclusion, I don't view it as a productive use of editor time to formally object. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hurrah, I can parse that! Since my goal with this is to make you happy first and to put images in articles second, I shall add Stum but not Kumarasamy. I shall also now attempt to think of you as a teacher, while avoiding the temptation to chew gum, pass notes, and throw erasers while you aren't looking. --GRuban (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Meredith G. F. Worthen

Hello, Beccaynr. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Meredith G. F. Worthen, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Generation X

I saw you did some cleanup/repair work on Generation X recently. I'm hoping to check this edit off the big list; are you content with where the article stands now in that regard? XOR'easter (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi XOR'easter - I am not quite done with Generation X - there is a long list of sources after the sentence "The artists most often associated with the period are..." that I have not yet reviewed/restored, while keeping WP:SYNTH in mind. After that, however, the review and restoration will be completed - I just have not had a chance recently to focus on it, but I am hoping to get to it soon. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem — thanks for taking it on! XOR'easter (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - June 2023

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 6, Nos 251, 252, 271, 272, 273 Online events: New: Alphabet run X, Y & Z | LGBTQ+ women | Wiki Loves Pride | Women in Music Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green: June 2023 GA Editathon event page Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2023 global campaign The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th Tip of the month: Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I'm curious how you would proceed in this situation

Hello! I wanted to briefly ask you about how you would deal with a situation that popped up on BLPN (it's under Lana Rhoades).

While under dispute, one of the people who was in favor of including the name added the above persons real name as a redirect to the article, after it was removed for being a possible violation of BLPNAME.

I'm unsure of how redirects work, if it is allowed, but it came across as being a bad faith attempt to get it included in a backdoor approach.

I glanced at the policies regarding redirects, but didn't run across anything that caught my eye. You have way more experience so I figured I would ask you.

Oh, sorry one last question - if I was curious how to word a future post, so that it was less wordy than my usual posts but wanted to run it past a few users I respected before publicly posting it, is there a way to do that? I thought about putting it into draft space, but that wouldn't make a lot of sense since it's public. I haven't looked into Sandbox yet, but I think it might be an option. I wanted to run something past you and another user, with your permission (and if time permits on your end, of course)

Thank you so much for all your help, and advice!

Awshort (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Awshort! I reviewed the BLPN discussion, found the redirect, reviewed the redirect guideline, and left a comment in its own subsection in the BLPN subsection, because as I mentioned in my comment there, I am not particularly familiar with how these issues relate, but I think it seems relevant for discussion participants to consider, or at least know that it now exists.

As general advice, I think your participation in the discussion has been thorough, policy-based, and thoughtful - I would suggest that even when you are pinged, it does not necessarily require a response. You have stated your position, and this is fairly well-attended discussion, so I am not sure there is much more to say at this time - it may be helpful to wait for the discussion to continue, and consider writing a concise summary statement later to address multiple points, if it seems that this would add something new to the discussion and not simply repeat what you have already said. The oft-cited WP:BLUDGEON essay has further guidance on the art of effective discussion participation.

Probably the best advice I can offer at the moment is to avoid making statements during a content discussion, even careful ones like you have made here, that imply or suggest possible bad faith by an editor. Even a cautious statement can derail a discussion about content because an editor may seek to defend themselves, counter-allegations of bad faith may be made, etc etc; I find it helpful to consider how with the varying levels of experience in editors as well as the various ways policies and guidelines can be interpreted in good faith, there will be disagreements about what is and is not appropriate at any given time, and that fortunately, we primarily have the consensus model of decisionmaking to find resolutions. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Categories

Yeah, that's generally what you should do: if a category is only applicable to one of them and not to both, then place it on the redirect from that specific person's name instead of on the omnibus article. (If there's more than one redirect representing the same person, though, then it doesn't need to go on all of those, just one.) Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Bearcat! Although I am still puzzling about what to do with one of the alternative names for Mary Newport - she seems to be known as Mary Meinel-Newport for her roles on Star Trek (e.g. [4]). I am wondering if it is okay to add an actress category tag to this alternative name - I could remove this category from other alternative names, if that sounds reasonable. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

You can pick whichever redirect makes the most sense for any given category. Each category only needs to contain one redirect representing that person, but that doesn't mean that all of the categories have to be strictly on the same redirect — you are allowed to put some of her categories on "Newport", some on "Meitei" and some on "Meitei-Newport", depending on which name suits each category best. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense, and thank you very much for the clarification. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Miss Major Griffin-Gracy

I have pinged you on talk. Discuss, don't edit war. There's a reason her Stonewall claims have been re-evaluated. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, I am discussing this on the Talk page, and I also ask for you to please stop restoring content that is disputed according to WP:BLP policy and WP:ONUS. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Who is disputing it besides you? You are removing stable content against consensus. There wasn't much engagement on talk, but over the years on MMGG and Stonewall talk, there has been agreement that every single source came back to a self-claim by MMGG. Not a single source that has interviewed the known and documented veterans of the rebellion has ever mentioned MMGG. When MMGG showed up in recent years, she not only made extraordinary claims with zero supporting evidence or witnesses, but all investigations showed her version of events simply did not hold up. I know it's disappointing for those new to all of this who like her, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia can print these things. We have to evaluate sources based on the entire field of reporting, not just interviews by people who don't know the field and didn't do due diligence. You are clearly trying to protect this BLP's reputation. But the problem is, what do we do when the BLP was not truthful? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we are talking about two separate issues:

1) I am trying to review available sources, and when I did, I did not find support for the paragraph of text that I removed [5], [6], [7], [8]. And this was in the midst of reviewing a variety of sources, including some that appear to directly conflict with the assertions made in the paragraph of text that was removed, including a source I noted on the article Talk page (e.g. her statement to The Advocate). From my view, this is an application of WP:BLP policy, which requires removal of unsourced and poorly-sourced contentious claims about a living person.

2) It also seems clear that she is widely-reported to be a 'Stonewall veteran', so I also have some concerns about what may seem like original research-style attempts to characterize her as lacking credibility, instead of applying NPOV policy to the sources that are available. However, I did review the article Talk page, and felt the recent Guardian source helped resolve the concern about a need for sources related to her presence there; you have disputed this, but I am optimistic that we can develop a way to present the available reliable sources in a way that reflects core content policies, although I think this discussion will be best continued at the article Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You need to go deeper. Every. Single. Report. Comes back to her statements. Every single one. I don't know when you started following this or how old you are, but those of us who were alive during Stonewall, who have known the Veterans group in all the decades since and know the vetrans (and knew the ones who are no longer with us).... she's not one. Yes, this is OR. But we know who was there and who wasn't. You're being fooled. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You didn't find a source for her claim that Marsha P. Johnson wasn't at the Stonewall Rebellion? You didn't see the screenshot Bob Kohler posted? Or you want to pretend the source doesn't exist because you deleted it? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I also am keen about assessing sources and evidence, and did not find the Will Kohler screenshot to support the paragraph of text nor that she claimed Johnson wasn't at the Stonewall Rebellion - "I did not run into them that night" does not support stating in wikivoice that she claims Johnson wasn't there; especially when there appears to be at least one RS where she states, "Many who took part in the Stonewall Rebellion died way before their time, like my sisters Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson," explains Miss Major." (Advocate) Beccaynr (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:CT55555 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Beccaynr; who has been active since late 2020 with 25000 edits and 70% contributions to MainSpace. Very active at WP:AFD, particularly notable for their article improvement efforts and their very carefully presented arguments to either keep or delete. Consistently makes detailed justifications of their !votes and is notable for efforts to find sources in hard-to-find places. The list of 292 articles they have rescued is presented here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beccaynr#Selected_work. The list of biographies that they have written follows and is equally impressive. While AFD can often be populated by voters who rush and are polarized into extreme keep or delete camps, Beccaynr avoids both tendencies. Very active at various WP:WIRED endeavours and significantly helps reduce gender imbalance on wikipedia.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 21:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)