This is an archive of past discussions with User:Beccaynr. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
3rr heads up
Hey, just wanted to let you know, it looks like you're at 3 reverts on Let's Go Brandon. (I only mention this because I know how easy it is to lose track, especially if you don't often edit high-traffic articles - I only just noticed that I was also on the threshold.) Colin M (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Colin M, and I would like to affirm I am trying to work with you by adding sources and making incremental changes to the language at Let's Go Brandon, including in response to your edit summaries, and I would be happy to talk about it further on the article Talk page. I have otherwise been trying to keep the article stable due to the pending RfC, because in the Responding to an RfC section at WP:RFC, it states, Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring, so similar to other editors, I have been reverting content subject to the RfC and as needed adding reminders on userpages about the process. As you know, I have WP:BLP concerns about this article, so I particularly appreciate that you have been willing to engage in discussion. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Awesome, glad to hear we're on the same page! And speaking of edit summaries, thanks for consistently including good ones - it's very helpful. Colin M (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
November 2021
Please discuss article content on article Talk pages
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Let's Go Brandon. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
Hi Mikehawk10, as a follow up to my previous note on your Talk page about adding disputed content to Kelli Stavast while an RfC is pending about whether to include it [1], I also wrote on the Talk page of the Let's Go Brandon article [2],
The Responding to an RfC section of WP:RFC includes Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved, and WP:ONUS includes, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, so it appears that this disputed content should not continue to be re-added while the RfC is pending.
I therefore request that you undo your recent reversion that re-adds the disputed content for which there is a pending RfC [3], and please wait for the RfC to conclude so consensus can be obtained about whether or not to include it. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi again. It's extremely atypical, from my experience on-wiki, that material that is in the WP:STATUSQUO version of an article is omitted throughout the duration of the RfC. In general, absent a consensus one way or the other (as WP:NOCON states), a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. While the consensus-making process (via RfC) is being undertaken, I would avoid removing the content that had been there since the original version of the page. I kindly ask that you leave the status quo in place until the RfC concludes. I do not intent to make any additional reverts, in large part because AMPOL is not really where I want to be spending my time or energy, but I'd ask you to [b]e patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved. If there's a consensus to remove the status quo, then so be it, but I don't think repeatedly editing it out right now is helpful to the article's development. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Mikehawk10, I'm not sure how helpful it is for us to have the same or similar discussion here and at the article Talk page, where I just wrote
WP:NOCON also states for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it, and without a concluded RfC, it appears that there is no consensus at this point for this disputed content, which relates to a living person, and for which WP:BLP policy concerns have been raised in the discussion, and therefore seems able to be considered "contentious". There is also clearly a dispute about including this content, and as noted above, WP:ONUS describes a need for consensus before inclusion, which is what the RfC is designed to help facilitate. I think policy supports removal of the disputed content of Kelli Stavast's name from this article while the RfC is pending, per the WP:RFC guidance and WP:ONUS. Thank you,
so I request that this discussion be continued on the article Talk page, where another editor appears to have also disagreed with your assertion of the status quo in an article that was created on October 26. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Please tell me, where in these edits did I add disputed content to Kelli Stavast while an RfC is pending about whether to include it? Are there any Requests for comment open on her engagement? Of course not! None of the content to that I added to the Kelli Stavast article was under RfC, and you either knew that or know that now. There is no reasonable way to construe that RfC to be so broad as to encapsulate all sources that include the phrase "Let's Go Brandon" in some way or mention her involvement in it; there is no way that my addition of sources in some way subverts a a content dispute wholly unrelated to the way that the source is used. Please strike your baseless characterization of my edits to Kelli Stavast. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Mikehawk10, the Heavy.com article referenced "Let's Go Brandon" in the title, and includes "Let's Go Brandon" content, so it seems to me to be an addition of "Let's Go Brandon" content to the article while an RfC is pending about whether to include such content. And that is in addition to the noted WP:RSP concerns, which I understand to be an overview of past discussions and consensus about sources, and particularly with regard to Heavy.com and the simple solution of how to address the churnalism that seems apparent in that source. It had also seemed that you correctly identified a concern about relying on self-published content, so I removed the content based on her Instagram, added information from an independent and reliable source, and have no objection to you adding content based on the NBC interview. I think that discussions about article content are best addressed on the respective article Talk pages and continue to request that you continue any discussions about the article content there. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a substantial difference between an addition of "Let's Go Brandon" content to the article and adding a reference to sentence regarding the article subject's marriage. If we were to consider words in the name of referenced works as a part of the "content" of an article, and were to freeze all the addition of a sources when anything relating to that referenced source's title were under RfC, we would utterly fail at being uncensored. In fact, WP:Vcommands that [a]ll quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. And, while I understand your rationale for removing the citation, the rationale has no basis in the WP:RFC information page. I agree that the NBC Sports source is better than Heavy.com, which is why I added it to the article, but the general principle that you're articulating regarding WP:RFC and title of sources has no basis in policy. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Mikehawk10, I disagree with your assessment about whether a source with "Let's Go Brandon" in the title and "Let's Go Brandon" content constitutes an addition of "Let's Go Brandon" content to the article, and as we have discussed elsewhere, believe that disputed content is also subject to WP:ONUS, but I am glad that we found a way to work around it with an alternative source. I am also hatting this discussion, because I have asked you to continue discussing issues related to article content on the article Talk pages, and this is a way to more clearly communicate this request. There are already many inter-related discussions happening about these topics, and it seems most efficient to limit the number of forums. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you I have learned a lot from you and yes there is still more to learn. Please do keep up your good work. Looking for more collaboration and research on many more other articles. Thanks again Dr Changetheworld (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Dr Changetheworld, it looks like she does not have an article yet, is that correct? But she is an author, e.g. [4], [5], [6] and law professor (?). I found the article that appears to be about her mother, Geeta Sane, that also needs work. If you have sources that can help develop an article, please feel free to post them here. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Flegalaffairs.gov.in%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F(V)Effectuation%2520of%2520Fundamental%2520Duties%2520of%2520Citizens.pdf&clen=940169&chunk=true Dr Changetheworld (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
More than being known as professor in Pune, she is known for being one of the signatory in the open letter to the Chief Justice written by by Prof Upendra Baxi, Prof Lotika Sarkar and Raghunath Kelkar after Mathura's rape matter and for her legal literacy drive through her organization MARG Dr Changetheworld (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Dr Changetheworld, I have added sources, including reviews of some of her books, and edited the article. I also added Wikiprojects to the Talk page, which may draw more attention from other editors. I plan to work more on the article to make minor updates to citations and her list of works, but I think the article is developing well. Thank you for letting me know about this article and for all of your work to create it. Beccaynr (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Helen! And especially for your creation of the article - I'm happy to have been able to shake a tailfeather in support of what you started Beccaynr (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi scope_creep, I ran her name through the Wikipedia Library databases I have access to and got one result for a report she authored. In an online search, I found a 2015 news report about the poltical party that mentions her, and a 2015 WP:NEWSWEEK article about the political party with quotes from her, and essentially no WP:SECONDARY context or commentary about her, even if it could be considered WP:RS. I have not looked too closely at non-English sources, (e.g. Jublar for skjenkestopp for strippeklubb, NRK 2016), but what may be in-depth coverage in the article appears subscription blocked, e.g. Rosa briller (BT, 2015), this source in the article is an alumni magazine, so not independent, and this source is an interview/advertisement (translation: "DNB Nyheter is not an ordinary online newspaper. We are not independent, we are not neutral journalists and we who write here are paid by the bank. Nevertheless, DNB Nyheter is not "just" advertising either."). I did add WikiProject Norway to the Talk page of the article, and seeking their input may be helpful, particularly for the non-English sources, because more appears needed to help support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Beccaynr:. I think in that case I'm going to send the article to Afd. I thought it was borderline before, now with your input, it is below borderline I think. She is very young and it may be a case WP:TOOSOON. I'll look at it again tommorrow. scope_creepTalk21:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, GhostOfDanGurney, I had just been formulating a comment blend of 'we're gonna need a bigger tea' to add to my previous comment on your Talk page, and I also appreciate your efforts to engage in so many wide-ranging discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the fyi, GhostOfDanGurney - I was just getting caught up after my recent reversion, because they have been on my temp watchlist since I added a 3RR warning to their Talk page [7] for the same article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I removed an award from Surbhi Chandna's page but you reverted the same. I was just eager to know about it that why did you do so because I didn't remove the respective content due to it being unsourced but due to its non-notability. Thanks, ManaliJain (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I in the midst of working on another project at the moment, but I would be happy to discuss this article content issue more on the article Talk page. But in the meantime, please note that per WP:FILMCRITICLIST, Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability, and it appears you removed an award that does have its own Wikipedia article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi ManaliJain and Princepratap1234, I request that discussion about the article content happen at the article Talk page, so other editors can participate and the history of discussion related to the article can be readily available. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Frances is our daughter, and this has been a whirlwind the past two months. We very much appreciate a factual and balanced article about her. A parent’s impulse is to protect, but she is launched on seas far beyond our reach, and we appreciate the kindness and thoughtfulness of strangers. Alice (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Alice (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
