User talk:Beccaynr/Archives/2022/July

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.

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)

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)

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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great work to help to save Felicity LaFortune. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Bearian! This one was a fun surprise :) Beccaynr (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

Barbara Lisicki
Charity Dean
Charity Dean : or, if you prefer, alternative version
Charity Dean : ... or if you don't like either, we can crop to her from this image that was already in Commons, she's second from left
Daphne Frias : You have the video itself, but I think this more detailed capture is better for the infobox, and the video can go in the body. Unless you disagree, of course.
Karishma Mehta
Full picture with Dia Mirza and Mehta's book
Or if you prefer standing, Karishma Mehta
Full picture with Dia Mirza and Mehta's book
Katherine Gilmore Richardson
Nesrine Malik
Ranjana Kumari
Rayhan Asat
Rebecca Mammen John‎
Ruthanna Emrys
Syra Madad
Taylor Dumpson‎
Ushasie Chakraborty
Willene Johnson

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)

Great to hear! Will add these and keep going forward. Good to work with you. --GRuban (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You were so helpful and friendly. Thanks for all the insight. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)