This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Thank you, Whispyhistory, and for your creation of the article! I was so glad to find the article underway while I was working on another potentially related article, and the research was very interesting. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
The Special Barnstar
Thank you for working hard to come to a great compromise Elvisisalive95 (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Heart icon on a user page
Thank you, Elvisisalive95, I can't figure out how to fix the formatting, but the barnstar and your participation in our discussion is much appreciated. Beccaynr (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello! Thank you! I loved the outcome of our discussion and look forward to working with you in the future! Here’s a freshly baked cookie! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Face Palm for the formatting issues ! Sorry! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cheers, Elvisisalive95! I typically use the heart icon at the top of a user page to add barnstars etc., and avoid the <nowiki> markup, because that breaks the formatting. There are so many little quirks to figuring out how all of this works, it takes time. Thank you again, Beccaynr (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You've flagged Laurie Buckhout as requiring a copyvio revdel, but I can't work out in which revision, the offending material was removed. This information is needed as we have to revdel all the revisions from the edit when the material was added to the point it was removed, not just the revision where it was added. You can add the revision number to the {{copyvio-revdel}} using the |end= parameter. Thanks. Nthep (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, Nthep - I have updated the template, and I will be sure to include end diffs in the future. Also, please note my removal edit summaries are mostly unclear because I didn't consider the possibility of copyvio until after I had removed various references that did not appear to support article text, and then wondered where the text may have originated; when I checked the campaign website, that is where I found what seemed to be significant enough content to warrant a copyvio review. Thanks again. Beccaynr (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. All done now. Nthep (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, Beccaynr, and thanks for all your efforts on Abigail Larson before and after the heritage merge. I was intending to sort it out now and discovered you had not only restored the version before the merge but had made further improvements. I'm sorry you had to spend so much time on it but am sure KRKwrites will be pleased to see it is now back to what ORES and Rater consider to be GA status (providing a basis for a B rating on the talk page). This all shows what deep water you can get into when all you want to do is to help new contributors with their first article.--Ipigott (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, Ipigott - I did try to restore the version before the merge, although I am not sure I got all of it, but I figure review of the edit history will find anything I may have missed. When I saw the article move to mainspace, I was somewhat concerned about an AfD starting (despite the support for notability and the well-written article), so I tried to move quickly to add and emphasize independent and reliable secondary sources. With a subject this prolific, there are a lot of reviews, and I am not particularly familiar with all of the sources, but other Wikiprojects (Videogames, Comics) likely have more experience. In the meantime, it is so nice to see Wikiproject Women in Red in action, supporting new editors (it was not so long ago I was such an editor with my own first article supported by you and other WIR members). Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I still spend quite a bit of my time trying to help new contributors, including many who are specifically interested in writing about women. Unfortunately not many of those from the educational environment manage to stay but there are exceptions. We are constantly trying to find new incentives to improve participation. If you have any ideas, you can post them at the bottom of our Ideas page. Thanks once again for all you help.--Ipigott (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey,
About this edit, do we really need to go into that much detail about who originally reported the school letter? That's kinda what the citation template is for, with that specific article being citation 29 in that revision. Surely it's enough to just summarise that the school district said they would be taking those actions? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the note, Sideswipe9th - I think the date is helpful for the narrative in that section, but I wasn't able to find a source with the letter or clearly saying when the letter was sent, so I went with 'reported on February 16' to help form the narrative. I agree that identifying the news outlet seems unnecessary, though. Beccaynr (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
1) "In the video, Nex—dressed in a black t-shirt and cargo pants, their dark hair cut short—tells the officer “I got jumped” and that they didn’t know the three freshman girls who hurt them until that week."
2) "During the ensuing hospital interview, the police officer tells Nex and Benedict that the school was supposed to have contacted the police immediately after the fight. But he also advised that it might not be in their their best interests to pursue criminal charges, since Nex could be seen as having started the physical fight."
Inserting clarifying information to the two points above was the goal of my edit. The phrasing that I used in my edit was intended to mirror the language from the news article so as to communicate accurately and clarify details that seemed somewhat misleading in the previous version.
As such, my edits were accurate and came directly from a qualified news source (certainly not an instance of OR), I would appreciate if they were restored so that the public record could reflect greater accuracy on this story, given how much misinformation surrounded it during the initial week of its reporting. If you have suggestions as to changes to my edits that might make it not "seem less than neutral," I would be happy to review those as well. Metatrain (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I saw your note but I don't fully understand what's going on, or what you would like me to say. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Drmies, the entire situation is a bit sprawling, but I thought of you because of the passing similarity to a previous content dispute with an editor who then edited unrelated articles I had created; in context, it felt a bit more loaded, but taking an objective view, I tried to present it to the editor with highlights of some of their conduct in the contentious A/I and BLP topic areas as something to consider when working carefully and collaboratively in contentious topic areas, and they seem to have taken as such [2]. I am also tired and also trying to figure out how to effectively proceed - AfD? BLPN? take a nap until it has been 24 hours since my previous revert based on good-faith BLP objections? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Eh, I don't know. I'm coming in cold and I can't follow the "From my view," sentence. And I can't tell what I'm supposed to look at or think of: I thought you were talking about an editor's behavior in relation to contentious topics, but AfD/BLPN is article matter. Is the editor disruptive? I'm an administrator--I am binary. If yes, something should be done. If no, nothing should be done. If, as you seem to be hinting at, they're leaning toward disruption, and they've been leaning that way for a while, then I think it's imperative to be clear. Don't beat around the bush. Warn them, say specifically what's troublesome, warn them of the risks--which, if I am seeing this correctly, is arbitration. Thanks, and enjoy the nap (I missed mine), Drmies (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've topic banned them for six months from ARBPIA. Concerns about BLP should always go to BLPN for broader input. It's also a good CYA step if you plan on invoking WP:BLPRESTORE/WP:3RRNO. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, ScottishFinnishRadish, and I was just writing a note to thank Drmies and to mention I ended up posting to BLPN, because I tend to be so content-focused, and to clarify various examples of conduct I felt have been disruptive. Now for some article clean up and then maybe a nap, and then back to working on an article about doughnuts. Beccaynr (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
On the topic of donuts, everyone was very happy when Dunkin Donuts started spreading so that any place there were more than 500 people within a mile radius one would pop up. However, now we're left with almost no local donut shops and very few other donut chains. As always happens in situations like this, Dunkin Donuts' donuts have gotten significantly worse, and you can't even get a cruller any more. It's a god damned shame. Luckily, tomorrow morning I plan on going out to an estate sale, and nearby where that is taking place there is a shop with excellent donuts and coffee. I'm pretty jazzed about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Through my article research, I have learned Voodoo Doughnuts is opening locations all over the place; perhaps the downfall of Dunkin helps explain their rapid expansion. and I have found it challenging to work on an article while mumbling 'mmmm, donuts' every few minutes. Do enjoy your excellent donuts and coffee! Beccaynr (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Congratulations!--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free image File:Michal Sela Forum logo 11-26-2022.jpegedit
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Michal Sela Forum logo 11-26-2022.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Latest comment: 28 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Surprised to see you retired! You were the nice and dedicated person in a not so nice environment. Wish you the very best in life ahead. Guillaume R Legrand (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Beccaynr, also surprised you retired and really sad to see you go. It's been a pleasure and honor to edit with you - wishing you all the best in wherever you head from here! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussionedit
Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Orphaned non-free image File:Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin in judges robes, Feb 6 1970.jpegedit
Latest comment: 12 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin in judges robes, Feb 6 1970.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Chicago Seven, news conference, February 28, 1970.jpegedit
Latest comment: 12 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Chicago Seven, news conference, February 28, 1970.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Festival of Life poster Chicago 1968.jpegedit
Latest comment: 12 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Festival of Life poster Chicago 1968.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Logan statue Grant Park Chicago Aug 26 1968.jpegedit
Latest comment: 12 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Logan statue Grant Park Chicago Aug 26 1968.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
