User talk:Beccaynr/Archives/2021/March

Institute for Social Ecology
Thank you so much for your help in improving the Institute for Social Ecology article. It was recently relisted for deletion for some strange reason. I'd really appreciate your input. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, Beccaynr, and welcome to Women in Red. While it's good to see you are now an official member of the project, I see you have concentrated much of your past rescue work on women's biographies, sometimes with remarkable results. In addition to this work, you might also be inspired to create new articles from scratch, perhaps in connection with our monthly priorities. If you haven't already done so, you might find it useful to look through our Primer for creating women's biographies. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 at Women in Red
thank you! Yesterday I started preliminary research for Angela Glover Blackwell and got a little overwhelmed because there was so much. I have not successfully created an article from scratch before, so I am thinking that I would use the AfC process and then use the WIR banner to add it to the article alerts page. Thank you again! Beccaynr (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are of course welcome to use AfC but valid new articles are sometimes refused for a variety of reasons. I and other WiR editors would be happy to review and help you along with your first few new articles. Just start them in your user space, using the sequence "User:Beccaynr/title of new article". Then let me know when you think they are ready for main space. Angela Glover Blackwell certainly seems to deserve an article. She's very much in the news these days.--Ipigott (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Using my user space sounds like a great plan - I will let you know when I have a draft for review. Thanks again! Beccaynr (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I have a draft ready for review at User:Beccaynr/Angela Glover Blackwell; there is more I could add, and I think the Works section citations need help, but any feedback or guidance you have at this point would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your draft looks fine and I have moved it into main space. I see you have not included her year of birth but there seem to be references to her growing up in the 1950s. Maybe it would be a good idea to add Category:1950s births. You'll see I've added other categories, some of which could be adapted to African-American. As for photographs, I see several come up on Creative Commons.--Ipigott (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I look forward to continuing to work on this article and with the WiR project! Beccaynr (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (sideline comment) You do not need AFC for an excellent draft such as the one described above!--- Possibly (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I have been reviewing WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Law for additional opportunities to create articles, and I very much appreciate the support. Beccaynr (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

 * Teamwork! Teamwork!! Teamwork!!! Beccaynr (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The Rescue Barnstar

 * Thank you, and many thanks for all of your work - it is an honor to be part of this team effort. Beccaynr (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure thing -- yeah -- I was not expecting her to become this visible -- was like "she is notable enough, profiled in enough places, and looks like one of those youth activists who will be very visible in 6-12 months since she is getting all these press requests". Did not imagine government crackdown to be the path to visibility :PSadads (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Streisand effect is generating so much coverage, keeping up with it is a challenge, but I am confident that our ongoing work will continue to enhance and hone the article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ...I'm here a month later :D I enjoyed working with both and you :-) Vikram Vincent 18:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

April editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Olive Branch
I redacted the one comment. Please let me know if anything else should be removed. It's not worth having our conflict get too personal or hurtful. Best wishes and happy editing.4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * in my experience, it is a benefit to discussions about the content of an article to focus on the evidence, not the person making the case. I do not wish to have a conflict with anyone, so I will continue with my focus on the content at AfD and article Talk pages. Beccaynr (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * True. I only mentioned you because of the WP:HEY argument, which required that I alert other editors to the fact that I questioned the validity of that. It wasn't meant to be personal. Please don't feel like I am picking on you. I am this hard and consistent on all AFD reviews. I want us to get along. Thanks for catching my error, I confused the last two journal articles. Just a note, expert opinions are generally not considered evidence of notability. When trying to find sources for Geenakumari, it would be helpful to identify material where she is the main subject, and her importance as lawyer or advocate is established outside of the context of an individual case. I hope you are able to find a reference like that, because she seems like a great person. Best wishes.4meter4 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying so - I do recognize that we have different styles, and I am trying to keep that in mind. My understanding is that AfD reviewers look only at what is in the discussion, so from my view, it's not necessarily helpful to them from a source assessment standpoint to just mention that I made contributions, instead of linking to the actual sources. But I will explain more about my thoughts on the article in the AfD after I rev up Google Translate again. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have tried to explain, e.g. in our discussion on your Talk page, diff, that I feel a style of communication focusing on me personally in forums about articles does not feel helpful or constructive. It had seemed like you recognized this with your previous good faith refactoring, but in the AfD we are now participating in, it feels like you are talking about me instead of the article, its sources, and the policies and guidelines. I continue to ask you to please just focus on the article discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Beccaynr, I am using an editing style at AFD that is typical on the encyclopedia among editors. I am actually being softer with you than what I typically am, by trying to explain policy kindly and patiently. I’ve been commenting at AFD for fifteen years, and I’ve rarely had anyone react this way. In general, when there are multiple comments at a thread and when we take issue with one person’s comments, its general policy to include that person’s name for the clarity of other readers. It’s not personal. Please understand this is how AFDs work.4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there is a difference between intent and impact, and per WP:CIVIL, It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Editors should take into account factors such as [...] whether a request has already been made to stop the behaviour. In addition, The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment: [...] belittling a fellow editor, which is what it feels like you are doing when you say things like "I hope this helps you understand what we are looking for at AFD," particularly in the context of our past discussions, because it feels like you are framing the issue as some kind of intellectual deficiency on my part instead of a good faith disgreement on how to interpret the policies as your peer. It does not feel like you are simply naming me in reply, and that is not my concern. This is why I keep asking for a focus on the evidence and not the person making the case. Beccaynr (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sigh, I added those words because I thought I sounded arrogant without them and mean, and you took offense to them. I feel like there is no winning with you, and that you are looking to find fault and read into my words tones and attitudes that aren’t there.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * With me, it isn't about winning, or finding fault. We are working with plain text, and misunderstandings happen. To clarify, your attempts to educate me on my Talk page, on article Talk pages, and at AfD are not welcome, and I request that you stop. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will happily stay off your talk page, but I can not agree to a WP:OWN of main space or AFD. We edit as a community, and ultimately I am going to treat you the way I would any other editor in an AFD discussion which is addressing you as an individual. The fact is you have a problem with my personality, and that is not my problem. I have been courteous to you, and I intend to keep being courteous. If I see you making a policy error, I will try to help you kindly at an AFD. I’m a teacher by profession and it’s in my nature to help people I perceive as making mistakes. If you choose not to learn from my experience, that is your choice. I’m not being condescending, I’m just being myself and I won’t apologize for that. I will not make myself less of an editor or make myself smaller for you. I wish you well.4meter4 (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not intended to communicate that I have a problem with your personality, and I apologize for anything I have said to make it seem like that is the issue. You previously had been gracious and recognized that some of your communication towards me was not interpreted as helpful, and I very much appreciated that, and hoped it meant you would adjust your approach. Perhaps you are aware of 'student-centered learning,' given your profession. I also believe there is a difference between wanting to help and actually helping, particularly when someone you are trying to help is telling you repeatedly that your approach is not working. I'm not so sure our academic and professional backgrounds are as relevant as the fact that we are all Wikipedians, and it is important for us to do what we can to foster a collegial and respectful environment. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I am very much a proponent of student centered learning, and in a different context (other than an AFD), we probably would get along much better. Unfortunately, AFD is a somewhat antagonistic space by nature and articles are put under a great deal of scrutiny when it comes to referencing and weighing the significance of those references. It can be a difficult space to learn in, particularly if it’s an article you have invested time in that is on the chopping block. I myself have had articles deleted that I cared about, and I learned a lot about wiki policy from that experience.4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am also not asking you to change how you edit on Wikipedia - I am asking you to adjust how you communicate with me, by only focusing on the articles in discussion forums about the articles. It is much easier for me to learn by doing (i.e. 'problem-based learning,' or experiential learning), perhaps because I'm an adult, although I suspect many theories of adult education are relevant to childhood learning, and there isn't a need for a dependent student/teacher hierarchy there, either. I don't need to be personally antagonized in order to learn, and if anything, I find it interferes with my understanding. But I have been hopeful that we can work through this, including because you seem to like opera, and I like opera, and that has got to mean something. Beccaynr (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Always good to meet another opera lover. Just wanted to let you know, I supported your draftify recommendation. I think that 1994 article is a promising lead as evidence for GNG, and it would be good to have some more time to collect resources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI
I went back through all the AfD discussions I've done metrics for and curated some of the STEM women coauthors who very likely meet NPROF but don't have WP articles. If you're into page creation and want some ideas I've put a table up on my userpage (I also linked to it in the Women Scientists WikiProject). Thanks again for always keeping the discussion so respectful (even when I would get a bit snarky)! JoelleJay (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and you might also be interested in this spreadsheet I've been maintaining for years of eponymous STEM women (well, it started out as such, but then expanded to include STEM women who made major contributions without having things named after them. The actually-eponymous ones are bolded). There's a detailed discussion on this WiR TP where I explain how this might be useful for acknowledging women's contributions in ways other than page creation. Anyway, feel free to leave a comment whenever you come across someone with an eponym I'm missing! JoelleJay (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have been meaning to reply for awhile now, and I will be sure to keep a lookout, although as may be obvious by now, STEM is not my field. However, it looks like it is time to have an article on Tameka Hobbs (Miami Herald, 2020), including due to sources that seem to have been missed at the past AfD (Tallahassee Democrat, 2018), (Tallahassee Democrat, 2017), (New York Times Magazine, 2015), and I appreciate you bringing her to my attention during our discussion. I did not want to get into the details of what I felt were essentially trial-court level opinions during our discussion (I may need to get over this tendency) but that did not stop me from researching the points you were raising. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Beccaynr, I'm glad you found more sources for Dr. Hobbs! I don't know as much about academic notability in the humanities since Scopus doesn't index them well, but it looks like you've found coverage that could raise her to GNG and possibly NPROF C7, so good work! I thought our discussions on Dr. Anand were really enlightening and productive, and I'm disappointed the closer's argument wasn't particularly deep or coherent (like, at all...). It seemed to really come down to our interpretations of SIGCOV and the additive properties thereof. I was pretty confident the individual news pieces didn't meet SIGCOV, but at the same time there was this surreal AfD where I felt similarly confident and it was closed as no consensus, so I was hoping whoever closed the Anand AfD would give a good assessment that could provide guidance in the future. Oh well, I guess... Anyway, I hope you'll stay active in the academic bio arena since we definitely need more people skilled at finding and summarizing sources :) Take care! JoelleJay (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers, ! I am more comfortable in the humanities field, and particularly anything that may fit under a broad banner of political science or sociology. I also followed up with the closing admin for clarification on Dr. Anand, and found this explanation helpful: "In the case of BLPs all sub notability guidelines are subordinate to the GNG as the community does not accept that we should be hosting inadequately sourced BLPs. Whether prof acknowledges this or not that is the wide practise across the encyclopaedia and is what drives my approach when balancing GNG against SNG. Around the edges there could be cases where a firm pass of an SNG might hold against a clear GNG fail but in the vast majority of cases where the GNG is clearly not met and its a BLP than a standalone article isn’t going to be the right outcome." And that surreal AfD is an example of why I am hesitant to rely too much on past AfDs... but I look forward to working with you in the future - I very much appreciate your contributions to the discussion and all of your insights. Beccaynr (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Divya Gokulnath has been accepted
 Divya Gokulnath, 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Divya_Gokulnath 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahomisation
Hello Beccaynr. Hope you are doing well. The Draft:Ahomisation seems a notable one and a good topic. But it is not written in an encyclopedic tone. If you have some free time to spare and is interested in remodifying this draft, I request your help to do it, so that I can move it into mainspace. Regards Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I unfortunately do not feel that I can help with this article, because I am not familiar with the subject matter and do not have access to many of the sources, which I would need to help rewrite the tone (and add references for parts of the article that currently do not have sources). Beccaynr (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, I know you would have done it if you really knew about it. No hard feelings. Regards:) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 02:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Deepinder Goyal. (March 31)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kashmorwiki was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Deepinder Goyal. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Deepinder Goyal., click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Deepinder_Goyal. Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kashmorwiki&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Deepinder_Goyal. reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, - like I mentioned earlier, this was a challenge to research - perhaps with more time there will be additional independent and reliable sources that will emerge. Beccaynr (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)