User talk:Beccaynr/Archives/2023/May

April 2023
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. RossButsy (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have left a more detailed edit summary in my second removal of the content, and per WP:BRD and WP:BLPRESTORE, encourage you to continue discussing this disputed content on the Talk page of the article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to closely remember three revert rule not sure how or why you’d call that original research. Since you’ve clearly taken issue with the sources being conservative based I’ve found a liberal source detailing exactly what the other two sources already did. RossButsy (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My recent edit summary states: "Rm per WP:BLPRESTORE - this content is not supported by this questionable source (WP:RS/P) and appears to be WP:OR and contrary to WP:NPOV." At WP:RS/P, there is a section for The Washington Times. Beccaynr (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said already I recognise sky news Australia and the Washington times might be impartial. So I’ve found multiple liberal sources that won’t and don’t fall under a questionable source. RossButsy (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And I tried to rebut your suggestion that I have "clearly taken issue with the sources being conservative based" with evidence of what I wrote, with additional detail to help focus discussion on policies, guidelines, and sources. From my view, this has nothing to do with "conservative" or "liberal" sources, but instead is a question of whether sources are reliable according to our guidelines and policies, and whether the article content is supported by the sources and our policies. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you rebut then I apologise, but the entire mulvaney article uses sources from traditionally legacy left wing based sources that much is true. Whether you think it is or isn’t you can’t deny the consistency of the article doesn’t include sources that have been contentious with regard to the situation. this being abc based is consistent with the article. RossButsy (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That source is not ABC News - it is by the The National Desk, produced by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which appears to be a questionable source, especially for claims about living people. And from my view, the Dylan Mulvaney article has a range of sources listed as generally reliable at WP:RS/P, e.g. the WP:LATIMES, WP:WAPO, NBC News, WP:NYTIMES, WP:VARIETY, and The Times. We need reliable sources to support content, which also helps assess whether it is WP:DUE to include in an article, and when considering WP:BLP policy, especially for contentious claims. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

A photo for you
As a peace offering, since I see you have this article linked on your user page as a rescue, so presumably it is important to you. Not putting the image in the article, since I recognize you might not think it is a good one, in which case that would be the exact opposite of my goal. Hope you like it, and will put it in the article or tell me that I can; if not, I shan't. --GRuban (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Another, similarly, with my compliments. --GRuban (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, GRuban, and I would like to emphasize how I always assume your good faith, even when we disagree, and going forward, I would appreciate it if you would help keep discussions focused by assuming mine. But as to the content issues, as I noted in our recent discussion, I think there is a need for particular care to be taken with user-generated images of nonpublic figures in BLPs. From my view, there is a tension between the general goal to illustrate articles and the various protections for nonpublic figures outlined in BLP policy. So I try to think about how to approach this issue in an objective manner before considering subjective aspects - in my experience working in contentious topics, objective guidance seems to often provide our most constructive path forward.
 * And I share your frustration with obtaining freely-licensed images from BLP subjects - before my recent flare of health challenges, I had been working on drafting a donation pitch for images based on the many examples available and our various policies. But this had less to do with an interest in illustrating articles than in trying to protect BLP subjects from what I think are poor-quality or nonrepresentative free images.
 * I'm not comfortable pitching to an article subject that there is a risk of a poor image being used unless they release a better image to us - the similar issue raised at WT:BLP with regard to subjects potentially feeling compelled to release images to avoid cartoon portraits being used in articles has got me thinking more about the kind of protections a nonpublic BLP subject may be entitled to with regard to images. It is a consistent theme in the encyclopedia that we don't include everything, and even if something is available, we do not necessarily include it. At this point, I am continuing to think about these issues, but my current capacity to launch a major community discussion is limited, and I have a different pending WT:BLP discussion that I hope to focus on in the meantime.
 * As to Tracy Lee Stum, the article is listed on my userpage as a rescue because I produced sources during the AfD, and is a reminder to myself to incorporate sources so the article has greater depth and notability is more clearly apparent. Subjectively, the image appears to be a nice, smiling picture that more clearly identifies her than the person-in-hat image currently in the infobox. I am more ambivalent about the Akil Kumarasamy image, I think because of my general sense that in-the-midst-of-speaking screenshots are not necessarily the most appropriate images for us to be tacking to the top of search results associated with her name.
 * From a policy standpoint, I think nonpublic figures may need to have greater weight assigned to subjective concerns about images, even though they have technically participated in a video. But as I said, I recognize the competing goals and potential for disagreement on these issues, particularly in case-by-case considerations for individual images, as well as how broadly our policies and guidelines tend to be written to provide us with flexibility, editorial discretion, and room for common sense. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response; but I'm afraid I couldn't quite parse the end result! I'm an engineer, which may be considered a mental handicap. You agree that the Stum image is good for that article and aren't sure about the Kumarasamy one? (For what it's worth, when I did a Google search for "Akil Kumarasamy" just now, the first images of her that I found were, in fact, screenshots of videos of her in the middle of speaking!) Cutting to the chase, would you object if I added them both? Unlike the other place, if you object, I won't add them. --GRuban (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My own perspective is shaped by experience as a lawyer and educator (which I note in my userboxes to try to offer some explanation for my own analytical approaches), which sometimes means a lot of explanation for a tl;dr of "I don't know at this time." But I have no objection to the Stum image replacing the person-in-hat image in the infobox, and I think the person-in-hat image could be moved elsewhere in the article because it depicts her engaged in her art. As to Kumarasamy, I could object, but I would also not foresee consensus agreeing with me based on the quality of the image, the recent discussion that led you here, and how policies and guidelines seem to typically be interpreted. So as a practical matter, while I do object to its inclusion, I don't view it as a productive use of editor time to formally object. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hurrah, I can parse that! Since my goal with this is to make you happy first and to put images in articles second, I shall add Stum but not Kumarasamy. I shall also now attempt to think of you as a teacher, while avoiding the temptation to chew gum, pass notes, and throw erasers while you aren't looking. --GRuban (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Meredith G. F. Worthen
Hello, Beccaynr. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Meredith G. F. Worthen, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki-love and request for review
Hi Beccaynr, I hope you've been doing well! Sending some wiki-love kittens since 1) you seem to have a lot going on IRL and 2) it seems you've been busy with a lot of tiring stuff on wikipedia as well.

If you've got the time, and no rush, I'd really appreciate your thoughts on the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board! It was in a sorry state when I first found it and read like an advert; I've done a lot to improve it since, but it needs some polishing and could do with a review. I'd like to get that and the CHTU article up to a B at least!

Also, I'd appreciate your ideas for new articles to work on after these! My next couple are going to be related to housing rights in NY and also fixing up the various RevCom articles since they all seem to have a plethora of issues lol. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi and thank you for the kittens! I have not been able to do as much as I would like on Wikipedia lately, but I am happy to offer some general feedback on Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, although this is based on a quick review. Overall, this article is progressing very nicely and looks like it has a bounty of strong sources to support further development. There are various details that raise a few guideline issues that I think are generally helpful to consider, so here are my thoughts as I had them while generally reviewing the article:
 * The first thing that stood out to me is a MOS:INTRO issue, because the line "They are an influential proponent of urban homesteading" seems potentially to be the kind of peacock language that should be avoided in favor of more specific descriptive language about what the organization does that is influential. Information from the sources can be used to 'show, not tell.' And per MOS:LEAD, the information for the lead should be drawn from the main article in a summary style, with appropriate weight.
 * Another issue is a possible MOS:WEASEL issue in the "UHAB has been criticized by some tenants for poor work on renovations" line. Whether this should be in the lead is separate question from how this likely could be more precisely phrased if it remains in the lead.
 * Also, the lead does not seem to need so many citations. MOS:CITELEAD offers more guidance about how to develop a more balanced approach. And per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the dissertation is likely a primary source and should therefore be used in a more limited manner (it appears to usually be an excess reference, so limiting the use of this source could be a way to help reduce some overciting generally; WP:BUNDLING citations may also be helpful).
 * And as a general issue, which may be the most time-intensive, I encourage you to review the text-source integrity guideline. This is something I have planned to generally suggest for you to consider - I think of citing each sentence as crucial when rapidly developing articles with multiple editors, but I also think it is a good habit when constructing articles - it can give you more flexibility when rearranging, editing, and adding text.
 * So these are my thoughts for now, and other editors may have different perspectives, but these are guidelines that I generally think about when constructing or reconstructing articles. And please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review!!!
 * For the peacocking in the lead, I agree, I was worried about that. On the other hand, multiple sources did name them as a primary / one of the primary proponents of homesteading and sweat equity, I'll try and make it more specific and note what they've done specifically.
 * For the criticism part specifically, I was also worried that was overly vague, but unsure how to balance summary with brevity, so I'll try and make it more precise. A few sources have noted criticism in various buildings/projects, and previously the article worked hard to downplay the criticism so may have prejudiced me to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction lol. Do you think I should add a criticism section and add relevant details there / split relevant ones from the body? I imagine that'll also help craft the lead sentence and make it follow the body more.
 * For the overciting in the lead, bit of a bad habit from GENSEX, I'm used to having to make sure every statement is cited extremely well lol. Relatedly, I'll cut down on the dissertation citations: I was worried about them, but they provided some of the most SIGCOV and had shown use by others, so I erred on the side of inclusion (for some reason there were also dozens of masters theses on them that were informative but obviously discountable).
 * Thanks for pointing out WP:TSI and WP:BUNDLING! I hadn't seen those before but glad to know them (though I wish I'd come across the former sooner since that's certainly a recurring issue on my part on reflection, I've tended to summarize multiple sources in a paragraph cited to them in most articles I've written). I'm about to get to work on the improvements, thanks again for the pointers! Best, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Overall, my sense is there is a fair amount of potential to expand this article with greater detail, and this can address various guideline-related issues. As to a criticism section for this article, I suggest reviewing the WP:STRUCTURE section of WP:NPOV policy, which seems to encourage incorporation into the main text; there is also the WP:CRIT essay with more nuanced opinions. My concern about these types of sections also include how they can break up the narrative or chronological flow of an article.
 * Also, as more detail emerges from sources, this will influence how much weight gets accorded in the lead and how the article is ultimately structured (this article may benefit from sections related to eras of the organization's history? subsections for major projects?). I also haven't looked closely at the dissertation but did want to flag it for additional review. And I am glad you appreciate the WP:TSI guideline - I think more closely citing your sources will help bolster the strength of your encyclopedic writing. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Beccaynr, hope you've been doing well! I've been busy with finals (graduating in a few weeks!) and haven't had time to edit as much lately, but I just nearly finished off the UHAB article in line with your advice. I'd appreciate your thoughts on what's necessary to take it to a B or greater from here!
 * Some additional notes for context:
 * I cited the UHAB website per WP:ABOUTSELF to note their executive director changed a few months ago (I'm trying to track down the original executive director)
 * I added some images I thought relevant to polish the article a little.
 * I think a few sentences can stand to be better cited according to WP:TSI, I'll re-review for that when I get the chance. I already got most of them and dealt with the overciting and the dissertation citation though.
 * There's a few additional details I need to include. Not major enough they'd change the lead, but notable enough for the body.
 * Their help setting up the CHTU, some collaborations with Russian housing activists, sponsorship of some notable programs, and a bit more context for the creation of TIL, CMP, and TPT (which were all programs from the Division of Alternative Management (DAMP), so I need to find the source explicitly connecting them).
 * Details of criticisms from tenants. Within the RS there are many instances noting criticisms they received at individual buildings. I need to review them and collate them to figure out how to include them, because I feel it's a notable enough pattern to be included, but many of the buildings are not notable enough themselves to be due in the article.
 * I'm thinking of making a reception section to cover that and their reception generally, as many notable figures and RS have given their thoughts on UHAB.
 * Additionally, they used to be on the board of / sponsor City Limits (New York magazine). I've struggled to find a non-primary independent source that notes that sadly. I've erred on the side of caution, as I'm unsure about whether city limits qualifies as a RS and how primary and aboutself deals with sponsors of publications. Do you think it would acceptable to note they were initial sponsors if only old city limits magazines acknowledge it? Either way, I'll try and track down some independent sources noting it.
 * Looking forward to your advice! Best, regards TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! And thank you, I am slowly getting back to Wikipedia, and congrats on your upcoming graduation! I think the restructuring of the article works quite well, and as I begin to review sources, I notice sources with information that may be helpful to further contextualize the organization. For example, in The Long Crisis (Google preview), the first chapter includes data about the scale of abandoned apartments in the late 1960s (pp. 20-21) as well as information and data about "the flurry of grassroots, low-income housing organizations that formed in the late 1960s and early 1970s." (pp. 21-22). Other similar organizations are noted in this chapter as well, including the People's Development Corporation (pp. 20-21) and the Phoenix Cooperative of Harlem (pp. 24-?). The preview ends there, and I will work on figuring out access to a more complete copy of this source, but situating this organization in the context of the circumstances in which it emerged could be a helpful addition. This article explains what they have accomplished, but adding more depth about the context seems to be part of the narrative that sources are highlighting, including the CUNY law review article (e.g. pp. 249-251), and could perhaps be incorporated into a Background (or similarly-titled) section at the beginning of the body of the article.
 * As a small note, I added an example of a page number template to the law review source - I don't think sources are needed in the first sentence to identify the organization, so the sources could be removed, but page numbers are needed to identify where information is sourced from sources with page numbers.
 * I also think 'advocacy' may be too limited a description based on their activities - maybe 'assistance' could be added? I have not reviewed everything closely enough to have a firm opinion, only a general sense that that there may be a broader way to describe the organization in the first sentence.
 * Also, I tend to think Reception sections work well for subjects such as books, but can interfere with the chronological narrative for other topics, and that may be an issue here. I suggest first incorporating criticism into the body of the article and any response from the organization. There can be a NPOV issue with separating out certain types of criticism from the body of the article, and from my view, if it breaks up the chronology, there is also an issue of increasing the cognitive load on readers, who then need to go back and forth between sections to identify when and where the criticism was aimed.
 * As to the question about only having City Limits claim the organization as a sponsor, I would avoid including this per WP:SELFSOURCE (claim about third parties) unless you have confirmation from an independent and reliable source and/or UHAB itself confirming this. It also seems to be a detail that may not be particularly relevant without more robust sourcing about the significance.
 * These are my first thoughts, and I would like to explore the adverse possession issues raised in the 2001-present section. I have not yet closely reviewed the sources, but I am interested in what happened to these claims and I have access to a legal database that may offer further sources. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just finished a final paper so have some time to edit today! I'm going to do some minor updates to UHAB: I checked out "The Tenant Movement in New York City, 1904-1984" (1986) from my school library a week ago and initially thought it didn't contain much relevant info about UHAB, but then discovered the index was not exhaustive... Bookmarked the relevant sections while reading through it. Between getting engrossed with UHAB, my finals, and my albatross making editing difficult, time's almost run out for the Core Contest so after those edits I'll try and focus on Tenants union (when not focused on finals) for the next 3 weeks.
 * Responding to the points you raised:
 * More context is a great idea! Given the long tenure of UHAB I'd say a "background" section right before "founding", with the details of emergence would be good. A paragraph in the "Activities (2001-Present)" section may be called for to account for the financial crisis and predatory equity, and perhaps one in the "(1974-2000)" section which would cover the larger context of their incorporation into the city (since quite a few sources seemed to speak on that as a turning point for both city and UHAB).
 * In terms of other small groups, the PDC is definitely called for and appears often. I believe I've only seen the Phoenix Cooperative in one source. The Renigades are repeatedly mentioned as a notable group they worked with early on. In terms of larger orgs, Adopt-A-Building, the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development, the Pratt Institute, and NYC's DAMP are called for as they frequently collaborated with UHAB.
 * The Long Crisis is available via the Wikipedia Library's Oxford Academic collection (though annoyingly only 1 chapter at a time, though I suppose it would be quick work to collate the chapter PDFs with the appropriate software)
 * I'll revisit advocacy, it is vague and could stand to be more detailed. I added it since the NYT has consistently used it to refer to UHAB for years, decades if memory serves, and it seemed a good placeholder.
 * I found the following description here while searching for documentation of the city limits connection: UHAB, which remains squarely in the housing sector, organizing tenant associations in subsidized housing, assisting existing tenant co-operatives, and taking advantage of opportunities to develop new tenant cooperatives in foreclosed or city-owned buildings
 * Good point about the reception section, as we fill in more details it'll be easier to integrate the criticism throughout the body.
 * WRT to city limits I found the following sources:
 * Vista Currents (1979) p. 8: City Limits is published by Pratt Institute, the Association for Neighborhood Development, and the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board. City Limits is geared to housing issues specifically related to low- and moderate-income persons. Written for a New York audience...
 * People Power: What Communities are Doing to Counter Inflation (1980) p.175: [UHAB] assists the Association of Neighborhood Housing Developers ... in the publication of the magazine City Limits.
 * Additionally, City Limits (2016) is an article on their organizations history where they state In September 1978, two of Schur’s allies—Ron Shiffman at Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development and Philip St. Georges at the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board—decided that their organizations and the movement would be better served if they took the funds they were spending on their own publications and merged them with ANHD’s. Each organization would contribute $5,000 each year. City Limits, they agreed, would function as an independent enterprise, without editorial interference from its sponsors. Schur and his co-sponsors believed strongly that the movement needed its own watchdog. ... In late 2009, City Limits became a project of the Community Service Society of New York
 * I think the first two sources justify inclusion, I'm not sure if their corroboration means the third could be cited for the additional details 1) the magazine was to be independent (I'll try and find an indep source for that) and 2) it was purchased in 2009.
 * Best, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice! One aspect of the research that can also be kept track of, perhaps in a sandbox, is for organizations such as the PDC that may also have WP:NONPROFIT notability - and if there is not enough for a standalone article, a section could be created in a related main article. And I just found City Limits (New York magazine), which would benefit from expansion.
 * It will probably be the weekend before I can fully refocus on this project and the research - including ideally finding more law review articles, but also generally looking at the caselaw. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the in-depth response! I just got dragged back to ANI and therefore have run out of time and mental bandwidth for a more in-depth reply, but I'll try and incorporate your advice and get back to you in the coming days. Best, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am aware and quite sorry to see you back at ANI. I know you are dedicated to improving as an editor, and I am happy to work with you when I can. In the meantime, for whatever it is worth, I think you raise some reasonable points at ANI about the TBAN policy as applied to your edit (and I have been reviewing it), but I do not think what you reverted constitutes obvious vandalism. I have more thoughts, but should probably post them to ANI to stay on the sunny side of your TBAN. In the meantime, I look forward to us both having the time and focus to dive into some obscure legal issues and history to help build the UHAB article. Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Generation X
I saw you did some cleanup/repair work on Generation X recently. I'm hoping to check this edit off the big list; are you content with where the article stands now in that regard? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi - I am not quite done with Generation X - there is a long list of sources after the sentence "The artists most often associated with the period are..." that I have not yet reviewed/restored, while keeping WP:SYNTH in mind. After that, however, the review and restoration will be completed - I just have not had a chance recently to focus on it, but I am hoping to get to it soon. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem &mdash; thanks for taking it on! XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - June 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging