User talk:Beccaynr/Archives/2021/October
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please explain your deletions
Edmonia Lewis. BLP for someone long dead? Which sources specifically do you find unreliable? Where is the copyright violation? deisenbe (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I tried to make it more clear in my edit summaries that there appear to be neutrality issues, including due to what seems like disparaging, judgmental language, as well as apparent original research, and the text being either unsourced or poorly sourced to a blog without any indication of reliability. In my edit summary about fixing the copyvio, I added an attribution and quotation marks for text from the American National Biography. [1]. This discussion is probably best had on the article Talk page if you wish to continue discussing the article content. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Please see my comments there. Best. On a positive note, you did improve the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 article and I thank you for those edits.4meter4 (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- 4meter4 I'm pretty sure your threat to take me to ANI, after I followed what appeared to be your suggestion in the Karen Pack AfD discussion to add an attribution to content I added, as well as your suggestion that I was operating with anything but good faith, should go here, not an article Talk page. So please remove your comment [2] from the article Talk page, and consider it read, and understood as what feels like an unfortunate continuation of conduct towards me that we have previously discussed and I really do not appreciate. I am startled by your behavior right now, so I apologize if I sound overly harsh in my response. Thanks, Beccaynr (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately no. You added an attribution that was inappropriate to a public talk page which has the potential to influence the outcome of an ongoing AFD. As such, the community deserves to be publicly warned where the attribution was made. You are free to retract/refactor your attribution, remove it from the talk page, and I will then refactor my comment. Further, I will point out that I stated specifically that it was unintentional on your part (I don't think you realized how it would impact that AFD at the time you were editing). I felt the warning was necessary, because merging (although this was not really a merge) in the middle of an AFD without consensus is a big deal and I wanted you to know how seriously I was taking it. This isn't personal. Any editor would get this response from me in a similar context. On a positive note, you've done a really excellent job of applying the sources in a different context and I applaud your efforts.4meter4 (talk)
- On second thought, I refactored my warning as a sign of good faith. But I do strongly urge you to retract your attribution as un-needed. You should take credit for your own work applying these sources.4meter4 (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, 4meter4, and I have replied on the article Talk page about my interpretation of WP:COPYWITHIN, why I think attribution appears to be warranted, and why I therefore appreciated what I thought was your reminder. I also appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues, as always. Beccaynr (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- On second thought, I refactored my warning as a sign of good faith. But I do strongly urge you to retract your attribution as un-needed. You should take credit for your own work applying these sources.4meter4 (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately no. You added an attribution that was inappropriate to a public talk page which has the potential to influence the outcome of an ongoing AFD. As such, the community deserves to be publicly warned where the attribution was made. You are free to retract/refactor your attribution, remove it from the talk page, and I will then refactor my comment. Further, I will point out that I stated specifically that it was unintentional on your part (I don't think you realized how it would impact that AFD at the time you were editing). I felt the warning was necessary, because merging (although this was not really a merge) in the middle of an AFD without consensus is a big deal and I wanted you to know how seriously I was taking it. This isn't personal. Any editor would get this response from me in a similar context. On a positive note, you've done a really excellent job of applying the sources in a different context and I applaud your efforts.4meter4 (talk)
Sophie Zhang
Hello Beccaynr, I authored Sophie Zhang biography article. The current one liner on Frances Haugen's article fails to point out the red handed political manipulations unveiled, which is core to Zhang stand, and fails to hold Facebook accountable for its impact. I believe the current one liner is too soft, it both reduces and misrepresents Zhang revealations. Can you help to find an adequate wording ? Yug (talk) 🐲 18:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC) ("election" may be inadequate, but "political manipulations" seems adequate to me).
- Thank you for following up, Yug, and I will continue to consider the wording, including per WP:WIKIVOICE - I was influenced by this recent opinion article in The Guardian, Facebook has just suffered its most devastating PR catastrophe yet, which reports the disclosure differently than how I interpreted your addition [3], which seemed to suggest that Facebook conducted the manipulation. Per MOS:SEEALSO, it also looks like the description should be brief, so that was also part of what I considered in my first edit to the description. Please note that I am in the midst of another project right now, but I will plan to return to this after thinking on it more and further reviewing the Sophie Zhang article. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I see, thanks for those sources to consider. I am non English native and i understand the need for briefness and optimisation so i'm not comfortable with this exercice indeed. Yug (talk) 🐲 18:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yug, I find your contributions helpful for building the encyclopedia, and I appreciate that you are willing to talk about how to best add more information. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Yug, as an update, I am still thinking about the summary in the See Also section on Haugen's article, and I have been following the recent news about Zhang and have added her article to my watchlist. I think upcoming events may help clarify how to describe her in a summary on Haugen's article, and please feel free to let me know if you have thoughts or ideas at any time. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yug, I find your contributions helpful for building the encyclopedia, and I appreciate that you are willing to talk about how to best add more information. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I see, thanks for those sources to consider. I am non English native and i understand the need for briefness and optimisation so i'm not comfortable with this exercice indeed. Yug (talk) 🐲 18:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Recent Claim I’ve Made Few Edits
Hi,
What’s the point in making a claim on Wikipedia that I’ve only made it a few edits? Such a thing or is intended to suggest that I have a single purpose account as is given in the link that you put next to my edit. I’ve edited a few accounts and they are enough accounts to suggest that I don’t have a single purpose account. Additionally I just signed up. So of course when someone just joins they will have edited only a few articles. Suggesting this in my case is out of context and is also incorrect because I edited and at least two different subjects now. Bagofscrews (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Bagofscrews, thank you for following up. When you made your comment [4] in the Kelli Stavast AfD, I counted ten edits outside the Kelli Stavast topic, with five of those related to one article, so that seemed to fit within the standard template of "few or no other edits". My intent was to help add context to your comment for the administrator who will close the deletion discussion and for other commenters who may want to discuss your comment with you. I think it can be helpful to quickly know when someone is new per our guideline to not bite the newcomers. Welcome to Wikipedia, and please note that the Teahouse is a resource for questions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Beccaynr I see it as that you are biting new comers. Regardless of the intention. I am new here and as a result I have edited only a few pages. Every new account goes through such a phase. On your comment that you put on my edit you put a link to something saying single use account. It certainly isn’t the case that the account is for single use. And it would be misleading to the moderator who would be making the decision on deletion to point out that I’ve only made a few edits. Because it would give that moderator the idea that I am here for some other purpose than editing Wikipedia fairly when in reality the fact that I’ve only edited a few pages so far is trivial and not relevant. Someone else reverted my edit as disruptive which is again a ridiculous exaggeration and a form of biting a newcomer. If you don’t want to bite newcomers and for some reason you think a moderator needs to know maybe you should instead put that the person is new to editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagofscrews (talk • contribs) 02:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Bagofscrews, on closer review, your first edit [5] was a source and text about Kelli Savast, added to the Brandon Brown (racing driver) article, and I am glad you have boldly edited a clarification to the template, because it is not my intention to antagonize you. But please note I also added a Welcome message to your Talk page [6], and I encourage you to follow the links and review the material there. Especially when I was new, I felt like I read a lot more than I contributed, because there is so much to read between the policies, guidelines, and related essays, as well as the various discussion boards to get a sense of how they work. I think you will make stronger arguments and have more of your content included in articles if you become more familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia, so I encourage you to continue on your learning curve. You are welcome to ask me questions here if you have them, and there are a variety of places on Wikipedia where you can ask for assistance. Beccaynr (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)