User talk:Megalibrarygirl/Archives/2019/July

Roundtable idea: Being wrong when in the minority
As a unrelated followup on the brouhaha, there's a discussion I've always wanted to have, but always felt somewhat discouraged from approaching as it is an somewhat uncomfortable topic and I've had some pretty hostile reactions to it, given it focuses on a rather uncomfortable issue. So I wondered if/how we could have a sort of round table discussion based on the general premises that


 * 1) You have a conflict/dispute involving social majority vs social minority
 * 2) The social majority is correct / The social minority is incorrect
 * 3) Both social majorities/minorities are acting in good faith

with the open question being "How can the social majority convey to the social minority that they are wrong about something, without causing (or at least minimizing) reactance in the minority and accusations of bad faith/biased behaviour, which may in turn cause reactance in the majority?" Or more simply "How can you tell someone of a minority group you are wrong, without them feeling there's an implied ... because you are not part of the social majority in there somewhere?"

It's not a well-formed idea in my mind at this point. I don't even know if the terms I used are the best as far as framing the question is concerned. But I figured I'd bounce the idea off of you and that you'd know some people that'd be interested in this. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's a useful discussion to have, especially since Wikipedia is made up of more people in the social majority as editors. I know some editors feel that if we didn't disclose our identities online, were completely anonymous, it would stop the problem. I disagree. I think our diversity is a strength if we choose to embrace it. I really do understand where you are coming from. The story I mentioned on the Fram page about saying some really well-intentioned things to African-American acquaintances was really humbling and uncomfortable. No one wants to feel stupid and I went away feeling very stupid and small. I felt a little unwelcome, too. Looking back, I learned a lot from it, though and I'm a better person because of it. But do we really have to put everyone through that? I don't think so.


 * So if we had a roundtable discussion about being sensitive to the 3 issues above, what would it look like? I might advise considering the following:


 * Invite social minorities to identify language that they find problematic in Wikipedia discussions. Please clarify "why" it's a problem and how.
 * Encourage interaction between both (or more) groups so that we can understand and appreciate our differences
 * Teach all editors the differences between critique of ideas/work vs. personal attacks -- this one is so hard. I have a BFA and part of getting that is showing your work and listening to criticism of it. At first, it's difficult: you feel like it's about you. Eventually, you learn that it's not about you: it's about making your work better. This, I think, is a problem for all humans. We all have to learn how to communicate and accept criticism. It's not just a majority/minority issue.


 * As an editor, I rarely feel that anyone is treating me differently because I'm a woman. (Rarely.) I have also been through a lot of processes that have taught me to have a thick skin. Perhaps we do need to coach our editors on how to separate work from personal attack. Having a thick skin is a benefit, though I'm not saying that teaching people to have a thick skin means that we should continue to encourage people to run around and act incivilly because they feel like it.


 * I really appreciate your dedication to working towards some kind of solution for this issue. I really feel like you care a lot about how people feel and that's awesome. Maybe when things calm down a bit more we can look for a good place on Wiki to bring it up together. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate that the two of you are beginning a conversation like this. I would like to point out one fallicy in the points if I may and if it will not cause contention. Correct and incorrect are polarizing positions. In reality there are many truths and each of our different experiences may lead us to equally valid conclusions. This is where I find most difficulties originate, as often the assumption is that "for me to be right, you have to be wrong", if views differ. (me and you here is illustrative and not directed at any one person). I personally don't think developing a thick skin has anything at all to do with civility, in fact quite the opposite. I am fairly sure that I do not have such a thing, but it would not generally occur to me to go into battle with someone simply because what they said made me uncomfortable. There are always ways to be open and kind. I welcome your continued discourse on the topic. SusunW (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your point about binaries. You're right: there's a lot of times when there is more than just the options of "correct vs. incorrect." It's a fallacy to assume there are only two options. I'm not sure how to phrase some situations into a multiple truth statement, though. :(


 * I agree, too, that not everyone needs a thick skin. I'm glad I have it, but quite honestly, it's come at the expense of a lot of pain for myself and it also means that today, I have a harder time expressing certain emotions. Not everyone wants to make that trade. For me, it works and for anyone else who wants to learn, I think we could find ways to teach people how to accept criticism better in ways that aren't as extreme as developing a thick skin like I did. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * (EC) Well, that's not really a fallacy more than it is the premise. Some disputes have a side that is right/correct, and a side that is wrong/incorrect. It's not all disputes that can be broken in that way, but if you are arguing "2 + 2 = 5" against "2 + 2 = 4" (as the numbers 2, 4, and 5 are normally understood to mean), then you are wrong, and the other side is right. It also doesn't mean that if a side is arguing "Delete" and the other side arguing "Keep" that either sides are right/wrong in a binary way, and that other options superior to both keep/delete don't exist (such as merge).
 * So see 'correct' as shorthand for "the Wikipedia outcome that would result from an impartial and bias-free application of platonically ideal principles of encyclopedicness" and 'incorrect' as not that outcome, rather than sides in a debate about if it is preferable to eat crimes against humanity, nasty-ass horrors, or slices of pure heaven.
 * &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * your pizza analogy seriously made me laugh. I promise you I won't ever argue about math(s), but I did once have a logic class wherein the exam was to write an essay on "Is it logical to assume that a man and a chicken are one and the same thing if the only thing you know is that they both have two legs?" While maintaining that my answer was "wrong", the professor gave me high marks, because my argument was that the very fact that they were called by different names brought in an element that two legs was not all that was known. What I was trying to convey is that context matters. SusunW (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well I wouldn't do well in such classes because my answer would just be a terse "Being the same thing means they are identical in all aspects, if you only know that one aspect of each thing is identical, you only know it meets a necessary but not sufficient condition to declare them the same thing." And then I'd have moved on to the next question, and continue to hate philosophy classes. Unless it was a formal logic class, which I would hate for entirely different reasons. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Did someone say "pizza?" *perks up* I guess there's something in all this, though, especially relating to the chicken and the man question. Are we also trying to solve a problem where we only have minimal information? What if part of the problem is that different people see logic, and therefore, right and wrong ways of doing things differently? We might have to figure out how people are looking at disputes in more detail. I'm the kind of person who in a dispute wants a workable answer... even if it's not a perfect one. There are others who want all of the details hammered out in disputes, whereas I'm often happiest in securing only the issues that are most important to me and letting the others sort themselves out. Maybe there's a way to figure out "What kind of editor are you?" and then use that as a tool when approaching others. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you meant the specific details of a prior dispute, but I'm purposefully avoiding connecting this to anything in particular. While there is a prior dispute/experience that inspired my desire for a conversation, I don't want the conversation to be a rehash of the old dispute. I more or less want to be able to have a good-faith discussion free of aspirations, and have both social minorities/majorities to able to raise uncomfortable points for the other sides.
 * I'm reminded of a discussion I had with a (male) therapist mostly working in the field of domestic violence, who also teaches in the field of social work. As a man, working with the other (offending, male) side, so to speak, his perspective and insight is also one that is unlike most you'd find in a women/gender studies department. He once had a dispute with a (female) colleague about something that involved uncomfortable truths that were unfashionable in a gender studies' department. And then tried to, making amends would be the wrong term here, but have some sort of dialogue with the person that flipped out because if you can't tackle gender issues from the men's side in a gender studies department, then where the hell can you do that? How do you protect yourself from becoming an echo chamber when you only allow half the stories to be relevant?
 * This isn't to say, of course, that one ought to give the same credence to an assaulter's story than the assaulted's story in terms of "who's in the wrong" here, but he's also dealt with several men that found themselves at their wits' end because they were accused of doing things they didn't do, or because of female-on-male violence (both psychological and physical). He eventually managed to mend things and convince her that the dialogue was worth having because understanding motivations of those doing wrong helps a) understanding how such violence arises and thus lets you tackle how to prevent it, beyond simple-minded things anti-bullying campaigns or other fashionable but ultimately ineffective hashtag-driven feel-good stuff b) let's you rehabilitate offenders c) helps contextualize the female experience; but also understanding men who have been wronged also helps you understand men in general, and not only men who are shit.
 * So I'm hoping to have something of a similar discussion here, where everyone can walk away with new perspectives, and where social majorities can better see where the social minority side is coming from, where their own bias can come into play, where the social minorities can see how individual action of social majorities aren't necessarily wrong/biased simply because they happened to be against's the social minorities' preferred outcome or happened to be inline with a historic bias, and how social majorities can better frame "platonically ideal" decisions in a way that doesn't make the social minority feel wronged, or make it clear that it's not a perpetuation of a historic bias. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I like your story about the gender studies department, . It's definitely possible to get entrenched in a way of thinking that doesn't reflect something true, but rather something we wish was true. And as a feminist, you are not just fighting for women's rights, but also for women to be fully human. That means acknowledging that women can be awful, too. Sometimes, I enjoy working on those kinds of women's articles just because I want to understand those women better. Men's stories are certainly and obviously valid, and I think a big trend overall is to acknowledge that patriarchy hurts men just as much as women. Men are often discouraged from expressing emotions or share difficult situations with others. Socially, they have to keep so much hurt inside of them. Women often do the same thing, too. I wonder if our reasons are the same? I suspect some might be. I know the APA has recently created some guidelines (here) for working with boys and men. It's pretty interesting.


 * I wonder about Platonic ideals, though. While I find them interesting and if you've ever read Anathem it makes for a very interesting premise, I don't know if it's possible to get there. That said, I don't think that just because we can't create a perfect way to communicate that doesn't mean we shouldn't try!


 * I think a lot of issues that social minorities face is that they have to constantly prove their legitimacy over and over again. This legitimacy is often just assumed for the majority. It makes everything a little harder because you're having to add that extra step. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Now with spiffy graphics! THE FUTURE IS HERE! &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * it looks like a bunch of dart boards have measles! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

How do you think we can start the kind of discussion we've been having above with the rest of Wikipedia? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure honestly! It's one of the very few areas on Wikipedia that I'm a bit flumoxed mostly because I don't know where anything like this has been done before. An RFC on one of the village pump could work, but I feel this should probably be it's own page (+advertised in a lot of places, mailing lists, etc...). Framing this as a roundtable/community consultation/whatever might also be more productive than framing it as an RFC, which will make people want to have an outcome/formal closure in the end. enwiki is hurting a lot now, and tempers are high, so I'm not sure if this will not become yet another page for the current brouhaha to spill over, or act as balm and calm tempers. Might be a good idea to wait till the upcoming board statement and see how things evolve from there. While this is technically independent from that discussion, a lot of themes will be paralleled.
 * Hosting the round table somewhere on meta might work too, although if we do that, this might affect participation. In what direction exactly, I don't know. Personally I'd want to hear more from the minority side than the majority side because the question I want the answer is one the social majority isn't really well equipped to answer, so whatever forum we settle on, I'd personally want the one with the biggest minority outreach potential.
 * &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel would have a lot of insight about this. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea is intriguing, but the venue (onwiki) is likely off-putting for the participants you'd like to engage. Time and time again, women have said they will not express their opinions onwiki because they don't want to be targeted, hounded, or more globally, it doesn't feel safe. These were common views in 2017 when I interviewed 65 gender diversity leaders, and this continues to be the perception with regards to the current situation. With the right facilitator/moderator, though, it might make all the difference, for example, an academic focused on gender studies and/or collaborative knowledge production (such as ). That said, I'll be a participant in a wiki-focused research symposium in August, representing Women in Red, and perhaps there might be some interest from those in attendance to look more closely at this idea. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not thinking just women/gender related issues (although this is by far the flagship of this), but really any social minority from indigenous folks, to white people living in Japan, to Global South vs Global North, non-Anglos on enwiki, non-Germans on dewiki, etc... &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I see. Yes, that will bring in more voices. I like the idea of hearing from immigrants, also senior citizens. Might this type of roundtable research to gain insight into social minority points of view fall within the scope of the Diversity Working Group, ? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think is onto something. We just need to find the right venue to discuss and get a good cross-section of editors to weigh in. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's partly why I use the term 'social minority', because whether or not you're part of one depends on the space you get involved at. I'm not part of the social minority on Wikipedia as whole. I am the typical Wikipedia editor, white, male, mid-30s, higher education, part of the global north, technically and technologically proficient. And I have access to technological resources (I edit on several machines, my main one being a ~$5000 machine, with two 27 inch high resolution monitors with extremely high visual fidelity) beyond those of most editors. I'm not only part of nearly every social majority on Wikipedia, I'm privileged event amongst them.
 * But when I get involved at e.g. WIR, I enter a space where I'm no longer part of every social majority, as WIR is mostly women. Likewise when I try to do some outreach at frwiki, while I speak French natively, I'm French-Canadian (Acadian to be specific), which puts me at disadvantages with the mostly French of France crowd over there (both linguistically and culturally). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/ is the kind of venue where such a conversation could take place. Vexations (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * what do you think of the suggestion from ? I've never used that space before. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , It's still very new, but a few people are starting to use it. Perhaps readers here find this discussion interesting: https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/purpose-of-wikimedia-space-discussion/292 I haven't used it myself yet, but have been in touch with people that have currently use alternatives to on-wiki discussions (Slack (software), in my case). It's an interesting effort by the foundation to create a platform that supports civil discourse by design. Vexations (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a member of a few Slacks, so I'm comfortable with how that works. But I'd support trying out this new space. One question: as it's a wiki space, how private are the private areas? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am pretty not technical and um probably not a typical editor. Headbomb and I have only 2 characteristics in common, and for the most part, I disclose nothing about myself in this platform, other than I live in Mexico, and am an immigrant. Never heard of that space, but I'm willing to give it a try, depending on how effective it is in protecting one's privacy. I really think dialogue is a prelude to solving the majority of the worlds' problems. While we may not be able to fix the issues, if we can forge understanding and empathy for divergent ideas, we may create a better learning environment. SusunW (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (EC) I'm relatively neutral. My initial instinct is enwiki, because it's bigger, it's how I naturally operate, it's where there's the most people, and enwiki would benefit a lot from this. But Rosie has a good point about enwiki turning off some people who's feedback would be very desired. Additionally, a neutral space might be better to include others from commons, wiktionary, wikidata, frwiki, dewiki, and the rest of the international crowd etc... So if a non-enwiki thing is desired, then I'm for whatever is simpler and gets the best feedback. It doesn't have to be a wikipage, it could be threaded conversations, it could be interviews, it could be a lot of things. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we have a lot more than only two things in common. One of the world's biggest mistake is to limit commonality to broad categories, rather than ideas or goals. Regardless of where you stand on the topic of pizza, I'm sure we'd both like to see improved coverage in several areas, even if we're not personally interested in that area. I'm sure we both consider Wikipedia to not be a zero-sum game, that we both believe that improving coverage in one area does not need to come at the expense of another area.
 * One thing I like very much about Wikipedia, it that it is a great equalizer and every time I encounter someone I picture them as amorphous blobs of flesh. I'd like to say this is intentional so I don't let my bias creep in, but the reality is that I'm just lazy and can't be arsed to remember what boxes people would tick on a census for pretty much everyone but those I closely interact with on the daily or have met in person. I once said I gave zero fucks about what gender people identify as, but that extends to pretty much every other broad category you could define out there. I don't care if you speak Spanish or German. I don't know or care to know if SusunW is a name, a nickname, a variant of Susan, a local artist, or an award-winning brand of local beer. I don't care if you're Mexican or someone that immigrated to Mexico. I don't care if you're disabled or abled. When I'm on Wikipedia, what I care about is getting WP:1Q right. And I think you care about that too. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (Well, not quite true. I would care to know all these things, to the extent that they can be leveraged for the purpose of WP:1Q. If you're colorblind, you become someone that can offer valuable MOS:CONTRAST/WP:ACCESS-related advice. If you speak Spanish, and work as a financial advisor, you can read Spanish sources and make sense of Financial mumbo jumbo.) &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC))
 * LOL, I was speaking only of the attributes you mentioned. I am sure there are more commonalities, as we are both humans and care passionately about improving the encyclopedia. (Also, I speak Spanish, but read it better. I can count to 100 in German, but that doesn't help with much conversation. French is impossible — I can only count to 15. I don't drink beer and prefer Greek pizza, thin European style crust. I don't work as a financial advisor, never did, but I am an excellent saver and a terrible spender. There are few things more tortuous than shopping.)
 * I am so glad that we are having this discussion here. It's a positive light in a very dark time right now and you've lit the torch! Do you think we should go ahead and set it up on the page suggested? Then we can invite everyone in this discussion and maybe post something on CENT? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Floy Little Bartlett
I'm planning on nominating the article for DYK. I also plan on adding you to the nomination because you helped me find most of the sources, if that is fine with you. SL93 (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! If you need any help going forward, let me know! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth L. Gardner
valereee (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

You
are not anyone to consider our issues closed.

Also in light of your inability to check t/p history:-


 * This edit
 * The entire circumstances over here:- An indefinite block followed by complete lack of self-awareness followed by a removal of TPA (due to mass-canvassing) followed by a shortening of the block to 1 month, whence she (probably) convincingly replied to three questions, one of which was:-You respond to my last email explaining in your own words how you will deal with disagreements with other users in the future.
 * The stuff over here
 * Snarky edit summaries like this
 * Miscellaneous battleground and non-collaborative behavior like this and this

In short, a complete battleground attitude whenever someone nominates her stuff for deletion or points out her noncompliance with policies and a neat refusal to engage and learn. Also, the folks at the other side include a lot many different editors and not Fram, whom I have not chosen intentionally.

I have not even ventured out of her t/p (because that's where I pointed you at the first place) and can dig more diffs at ease.....

~ Winged Blades Godric 19:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am a person who can consider it closed if you choose not to engage anymore, as you indicated on the talk page. However, you have chosen to engage, and in a very snarky way. However, snark doesn't bother me. It tells me that you are passionate about this issue. I wish you wouldn't assume what I may or may not think. I don't know what happened between you and Elisa. I wanted to better understand and therefore asked for what you considered the problems. I can look at t/p history but that doesn't tell me what you thought was the problem. Each of us has different standards as to what we consider problematic editing. It's important to know what you thought was a problem specifically so it could be evaluated by myself and others. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Godric, I have spoken to Elisa both on and off wiki. I have explained patiently what her problems were with close paraphrasing and rescued a few of her creations including Allanah Harper and Laura Barney Harding to prove I wasn't some clod-hopping deletionist ogre, and she responded kindly and patiently. There's some off-wiki stuff that you don't know about and I'm not telling you that lead me to give a little bit more compassion towards Elisa, but at the end of the day this is functionally identical to the way I have handled the likes of Eric Corbett, Cassianto and The Rambling Man - treat people with respect and you may be pleasantly surprised, grump at them and whack them over the head with policy laden clipboards, and they may just respond in kind. I will also say that regarding your complaint about snarky edit summaries, those in glass houses should not throw stones. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Mew!

 * Scottish Kitten.png (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC) ]]
 * you're right! Can always use more kittens! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Content of deleted page
Hello my fellow Women in Red editor. I would like to get the content of a recently deleted article. I went to the Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles and noticed you were listed there. It's nice to ask someone I know. The article was deleted for copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727 12.

However, I would just like to get the jist of what in the article since I can't recall one article out of the hundreds on my Watch List. I would like to recreate it, and obviously with original content this time. Appreciate if you would consider. It was "Dan Taylor (rodeo)". Thanks! I'll understand if you do not want to do it because it was a copyright issue. This is my first time doing this, so I hope this is correct. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll restore it to your user space and address the copyright issues. It's at User:Dawnleelyn/Dan Taylor (rodeo). Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Megalibrarygirl, thank you so much! I'll delete it when I'm done. Have a great day! :) dawnleelynn(talk) 19:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh I see you are still in process. No worries, finish when you can as it's definitely not a rush. I have plenty to do. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 20:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * you can start on it. I didn't see a lot of copyvio through Earwig, though there's a few articles I can't fully access. You might want to look more closely at those. If you need any more refs from Newspapers.com, let me know. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry. I think I messed up the ping. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just got back from a break. Thanks for all that! Just to be clear, am I supposed to use the draft article you created for me as the new article or is it just there to help me start a new userdraft? Like I said, I've never done this before. Thanks for the new refs too. Much appreciated. I will definitely check over regarding copyrighted material first. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Use the draft article I've put in your user space: User:Dawnleelyn/Dan Taylor (rodeo). There's already a good start and any copyvio seems to have been minor if there was any. Like I said, there's a few articles I couldn't access, so maybe that's where it's from. I did some rewrites, so that should also help remove any copyvio problems. I did find the articles about Dan Taylor in the newspaper database. You can use them to improve the article. There's probably more if you'd like me to dig around some more. :) When you're finished with the article, you should be able to move it to Article space yourself, but if you need help moving it, let me know. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I was just starting to go through my Watchlist for changes. Thank you then, you have done above and beyond what I requested and I want you to know I realize it and appreciate it. Thanks much and have a great week! dawnleelynn(talk) 16:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Anytime, ! Glad I could help. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Lisa Specht
I've rebooted this article at Draft:Lisa Specht. I've dug out a couple of sources with highlights of her career, but I'm sure you and your merry band of talk page stalkers can do better. If you move it to mainspace, she is already name-checked in Los Angeles Music Center so a link to the article should be made from there. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can dig up, Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Megalibrarygirl
Thank you for your helpful comments about sources/citations for the article about my husband, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Jr. and for your support of inclusion about the fact that he showed great character marrying me.

Joe was a remarkable man. In an atmosphere of hate, he openly married me. I think that says a great deal about him.

Thank you for your support.

Jenna Ware Hathalm (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. He did seem amazing and you're right: it's hard enough now for people to accept others who are different. I can't imagine what it was like before. Did the article get the sources it needed? I've been offline for a bit. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Thank you. You have been very kind and helpful.

Hathalm (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I appreciate your kind words. If you choose to continue editing Wikipedia, feel free to ask for help anytime. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)