User talk:Beccaynr/Archives/2023/April

Your use of sources/references
This is an odd request, but do you use a specialized tool or trick to organizing your sources? You recently posted a list of sources on an RfC we are both involved in, and it was nicely formatted and had dates, etc. I was just curious if you had advice for organizing long lists of sources, since you make it look effortless lol.

Take care!

Awshort (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, it has taken some trial-and-error for me to develop a format for source lists, and I tend to use colons and asterisks; if you use the edit button for the page, you can view how I line them up. I tend to start with an asterisk for the start of my comment, and then to list sources beneath them, use :* before each listed source, and : to add a final comment and my signature (or only my signature on a separate line beneath the list. For me, the key is to use the preview feature to check how it looks before publishing, to make sure there are no extra spaces, etc.
 * As a caveat, I have some concerns that my formatting may not be compliant with the advice in the WP:COLAS essay about how to format for people who use screen readers, so I have been considering how to adjust my formatting.
 * As to dates/etc, my standard approach is to enclose the publication and date in parentheses, preferably with a wikilink for the publication, although if it is a source that has been found unreliable at WP:RSP with its own entry link, I might include that. And then I copy everything to my clipboard, because it can take me so long to write and format everything that there is sometimes an edit conflict in the meantime, so it helps to have it easily available for reposting after re-opening the page in a new tab.
 * But some of this is an art, not a science. As an example, for the text you struck from a recent discussion (16:34, 5 April 2023), I might have reformatted/rephrased/added to it as follows:
 * Some key policies and guidelines worth noting that are related include WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The WP:NPF section of WP:BLP policy includes exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. [this could be where to list high-quality secondary sources about the suspect/defendant]
 * It also seems relevant that WP:BLP1E notes The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. [this could be where to list persistent coverage of the suspect/defendant in reliable sources]
 * WP:BLPNAME is also relevant, because I think the coverage shows the name has been widely disseminated and not including their name would result in a significant loss of context. [the significant loss of context needs explanation; for example, you could list local coverage (Dec. 1, 2022) and Fox News coverage (Dec. 1, 2022) of statements by the defendant's attorneys and then explain per WP:BLPNAME how this coverage requires naming the defendant to add significant value to the article]
 * Also, in the WP:HARM section of the Avoiding harm essay, there are factors supporting inclusion of the name that seem to apply, including 1) coverage in mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, 2) circumstances where a person has been charged with a crime, and 3) this is an event article. This essay also says WP:NPOV policy does not support "do no harm" removal.
 * Of course, you have asked for guidance from someone who is also trying to work on condensing their own comments, and to not overquote policies, guidelines, etc. I encourage you to keep at it - you are engaging with the sources and a wide array of applicable policies, guidelines and potentially relevant essays, and I think it takes time to adjust to the discussion formats and norms. Please feel free to let me know if you have questions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you,, and I am glad you are focused on the future and seeking ideas to support your ongoing development as an editor. I am drafting a list of ideas for you, although I anticipate being mostly off-wiki for the next few days to attend to some off-wiki tsuris. But in the meantime, my first idea is "Read more than you write," as in the policies, guidelines, essays, and various discussion boards - I have a collection on my userpage that you may wish to review. Thank you again for your courage, perseverance, and resilience, because this will serve you well here in all that you do. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Thanks for the list, I eagerly await it and hope your off wiki tsuris are resolved! Also, I skimmed but will completely read through the essays and misc you've linked by tonight! Generally, most of my Wiki-time is spent reading lol, even when writing articles the most time spent is reading through up to hundreds of sources and assessing their reliability and weight. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Thanks for your improvements to the Yasmine Seale page! Appreciate ya! --fellow educator Wikipedian

Jackie.salzinger (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC) 
 * Thank you,, and for creating her page! I learned so much from reviewing her career and I look forward to learning more as she continues to translate and write. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

AfD
Hi

My vote was precautionary, having already seen contributors who launch an AfD but remain neutral or change their minds and support conservation. Panam2014 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for following up - according to WP:AFDFORMAT, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this", so I interpreted your AfD nomination of Poupette Kenza as support for deletion, and the bolded !vote as a duplicate. Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

John Money
Hi. I added John Money back to the lede of Gender. I'm letting you know because after I did it I realized that the presence of John Money in the lede had been subject to previous editing by you, and you may have interest in the state of that section of the lede. Born25121642 (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know, - I reverted the addition with a basic edit summary, but we can talk about this more on the article Talk page, because I do not think the sources and article content support adding Money to the lead. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)