User talk:Beccaynr/Archives/2021/July

July 2021: "Book reviews are not promo"
Hi, the above comment was your edit summary for two reversions of my edits:. In fact, I was reverting gratuitous material about recent new editions of the work in question, which seemed only to serve a promotional purpose, rather than an educational one. The fact that the content came from book reviews seems not to be material here; the content, as used, was promotional, and I remove promo when I see it.

Yes, the Dazed review was an interesting read, but it's only cited to support the promotional content. The Dazed review is not article content in and of itself; it and other reviews may be found with a Google search. Would appreciate your comment here.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you very much for following up so I can better explain my reversions. I do not feel that the content as written is contrary to WP:PROMO, because it is written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery and sourced from independent, third-party sources, per the policy. For Nesrine Malik, from my view, providing basic information about the development of her book, from its first edition in 2019 through its new edition in 2021, seems to be appropriate content to include about her career as an author. Similarly, in We Need New Stories, it also seems appropriate, but also per MOS:LEAD, because it summarizes highlights from the main article, although I think it may also be possible to add content from the Publishers Weekly source. The image currently on the We Need New Stories article is the cover of the first edition, so including basic information about the existence of the second edition also seems additionally warranted. Does this help clarify my edits? Please let me know if you have further concerns. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Winnice P. Clemment
I thought this subject and the years of litigation and investigation she was involved in might interest you. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * yes indeed and thank you! And I am glad the article was published to mainspace so quickly, although I was planning to follow up with you about changing the title to "Winnice P. Clement" based on the majority of the sources. Do you have any objections to my moving the article to that name? Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Draft:White v. Clements also popped up. I think these cases and the judges and parties involved are interesting. Take care. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for letting me know about that article, and I apologize for my delayed reply - I have not yet worked on a legal case article, but I do plan to look into it more. I have been working on a BLP-related project that has been a major focus of my attention, and I hope to complete it fairly soon. Beccaynr (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

A gift

 * Yum,, and thank you very much! It is always nice to work with you on articles! Beccaynr (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Always nice working with you too! Best, Thriley (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Debra Cleaver
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

August Editathons at Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Disambiguation link notification for July 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rayhan Asat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Ina Caro
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)