User talk:Beccaynr/Archives/2022/May
 | 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. |
May Women in Red events
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Disambiguation link notification for May 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ana C. Reyes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
And Another
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
| For your thoughtful comments at an unpleasant ANI discussion which I will not name here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC) |
- Thank you, Timtrent, and for yours as well. I am trying to speak the language of restorative justice. Beccaynr (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Too often, I fear, we get coyotes instead of unicorns. ANI seems to attract the coyotes at first. The unicorns do arrive, but have to mend the damage. Many people 'speak' first and think much later, if they think at all. Wikipedia is much like Lord of the Flies in that regard. Wikipedia loves a crucifiction, or so it seems. And so we lose valid and valuable editors. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, which is why I have a lot of empathy for anyone suggesting a time-banded approach that avoids future community discussion. But in a complex, high-conflict situation like this, which includes the potential development of larger solutions that can strengthen the encyclopedia as a whole and be later pointed to as changed circumstances, I favor a temporary stabilization of the situation and a future discussion focused on empowerment and healing. Beccaynr (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Too often, I fear, we get coyotes instead of unicorns. ANI seems to attract the coyotes at first. The unicorns do arrive, but have to mend the damage. Many people 'speak' first and think much later, if they think at all. Wikipedia is much like Lord of the Flies in that regard. Wikipedia loves a crucifiction, or so it seems. And so we lose valid and valuable editors. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Restoration of reprinted reviews
Hiya. In relation to this note and this RV EDSUMM (that WP:NOTMIRROR is an "unsupported reason for content removal").
While I completely agree that WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTREVIEW wouldn't apply to a brief quote (or even several brief quotes) from reviews, when there are a dozen such quotes, and when those quotes constitute approaching 60% of an article's content (~380 words of reviews in ~670 words of total content), then that's a bit different. IMO at any rate.
And, while it is of course of significant value in an AfD discussion (great job BTW!) to collate coverage found as part of a WP:BEFORE (and add it to the AfD discussion), I'm not sure that copying a significant portion of that coverage (and add a bulk of it to the article itself) is as valuable.
Anyway. As you note, if it is kept (and I agree with you that it should be), then the article would ideally be improved. Including those many quoted reviews. So the article reads more like a Wikipedia article. And perhaps slightly less like a series of reprinted reviews :) If that's brought about by adding some stuff (as well as perhaps summarising some stuff) then great.
All the best. Guliolopez (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Guliolopez, thank you very much for following up on this - I see a lot of potential for development of this article that I think aligns with your perspective, because there is so much content that can be summarized about O'Connor from the various sources. I appreciate you adding a tag to the section where I added the third review back in - my preference is to clearly include the sources for the deletion discussion, and then return after the AfD to digest all of the sources, probably add more, and rework the article so it does not simply read like a collection of review quotes. I apologize for my rushed additions and for not clearly explaining my overall agreement with your perspective. O'Connor has a well-developed career, so I think it could take some time to integrate all of the available sources into the article, and I look forward to continuing to work with you. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Tracey Medeiros
On 16 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tracey Medeiros, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Art of Cooking with Cannabis by Tracey Medeiros was praised by the Los Angeles Times for showcasing a wide range of recipes outside of the "tired pot-brownie cliché"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tracey Medeiros. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tracey Medeiros), 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.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Rosemary Ann Robbins Dobbins
Hi @Beccaynr: I'm looking for some help at the Rosemary Ann Robbins Dobbins article. She was a NASA artist during the 60-80's. A lot of these images you've seen on voyager, apollo and so on have been been created by Dobbins. If you have time can you please have a look at the article. It needs a lot of sourcing and trimming. There is obits so I think she is notable. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 14:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Scope creep, thank you and yes, I will see what I can do with a search in the WP library. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)