User talk:StarryGrandma/Archive 9

Barrett Watten Sourcing

Hello StarryGrandma,

I've seen that you have engaged in the work toward consensus on the Barrett Watten page, which seems to be in need of an additional source. I believe there is a follow-up article being published in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, and was wondering if that second reporting from the same source would be sufficient.

Thank you! --Justanotherpoet (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again StarryGrandma,

It seems the Barrett Watten page remains protected from non-verified users, so I thought the best way forward was to contact you directly. A follow-up story has been published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which verifies the university's findings and the authenticity of disciplinary decisions against Watten, as listed in the Dean's letter. https://www.chronicle.com/article/This-Professor-Was-Accused-of/247705?cid=wcontentlist_hp_latest If this is paywalled for you, let me know. --Justanotherpoet (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I do have access to the Chronicle and see that this covers Watten's response too. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<material removed by admin>

Cutthepretense, I am not an administrator. Wikipedia articles have the obligation to be neutral. "Found guilty" may not be libel but it is not a neutral statement nor a statement of fact. "Guilty" is a criminal conviction in a court of law where the accused had the opportunity to mount a defense. The university findings came from an investigator's report and are being contested. We recommend that editors who are emotionally involved with a topic not edit that topic. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Citation bot in user space

Oh sorry, yes it should. I'll check better next time. Nemo 05:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Hi StarryGrandma, that talk page has been protected to stop those kinds of comment from being added. There appeared to be allegations in that post that were not in the Chronicle. It's obvious that there's a campaign against the BLP subject, and Wikipedia is being viewed as an important part of it. That has to be resisted. SarahSV (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, thanks for cleaning that up. They shouldn't be visible here. Actually all those are in the Chronicle article - I had assumed one of the findings was something else (not so serious) and was going to accuse the editor of exaggerating, but I just looked it up and I was wrong. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi SarahSV (talk), what exactly were the allegations against the article’s subject that were not in the Chronicle? There were four charges explicitly listed in the Chronicle piece, and those charges were sourced with an official university document. It seems increasingly clear that Wiki admins are failing to maintain a factual and encyclopedic stance because of an overabundance of caution. Watten is not teaching (the “currently teaching” are courses from 12 months ago, Winter 19) because he was removed from his duties after being found guilty of the charges previously listed above ^^. A campaign against the subject? Wikipedia as an important part of it? Hardly. Wikipedia is literally just one way many of his victims and friends of his victims have used to vent their frustration at years of abuse. The university found him guilty. Watten did not dispute the charges. Academics and graduate students editing Wikipedia pages to reflect those facts does not make those facts untrue.

I’m sure you’ll redact this comment as per this site’s clear policies (I understand and hold no ill will for that), but I sincerely hope you read this comments, take them seriously, read the source material (two Chronicle articles and the university’s official decision), and realize that the facts are the facts, no matter who follows Wikipedia policy.

It's worth noting this part of our biography of living persons (BLP) policy (WP:BLPCOI), bold added:

Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.

The BLP policy applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including talk pages, and note "or other material about that person". It's important to keep that biography completely separate from whatever's happening elsewhere. StarryGrandma, thank you for helping to sort it out. SarahSV (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV thank you for that succinct citing of the policy, which I certainly understand and do not imagine I am in a place to edit the article’s talk page. Considering their consistent history of referring to insider information, the account Historyofpoetry is also an inappropriate editor, but that’s neither here nor there. I hope the admins and editors continue to rely on the available evidence and source material above all else in curating the Watten page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanotherpoet (talk • contribs) 01:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not just that talk page, this one too. You shouldn't discuss it anywhere on Wikipedia. This is a policy you'd be grateful for if you were in his position, and I trust you see the sense of it even from the other side. It's important that the Wikipedia biography not become part of this dispute. SarahSV (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for guidance with DMC article

I’ve just read your helpful response to my question. Just before I got it, I followed X201’s suggestion and added those pieces from the stub that should remain (company info box, categories, and external links) into my sandbox, and then planned to move (or request that it be moved, if I am not able to do it) it to replace the original. This is completely new to me. Should I remove this content and follow your directions? Or maybe you are also talking about a move? I really appreciate your help! TrudiJ (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TrudiJ, a move isn't a good idea because that erases the existing history of the article. Just copy the entire contents of your sandbox into the article, replacing what is already there. Try it and see what happens. If there are problems they can easily be fixed. Wikipedia could use much more work on craft and textile topics. Figuring out how all this works isn't easy. It has taken me years to work out how to do things here, and I've used computers since 1962. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
StarryGrandma,I think it worked! I ended up using the Source editor. Thank you for your guidance. I have worked on the Crewel embroidery article extensively, and I'd like to keep working on needlework and textile topics. One more question for you: on the DMC Talk page, the stub designation remains. I don't know if I am able to remove that, or if a bot does, or if I need to worry about the stub template it mentions. Would you happen to know? Or should I not worry about this? TrudiJ (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TrudiJ, glad you find my user page useful. I need to keep information handy or I forget where I have seen it. The article grades including Stub are defined at Wikipedia:Content assessment. The letter grades are usually assessed by Wikipedia projects, but the stub status can be removed by any editor once the article is expanded. Wikipedia:Stub has more details. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

What a great set of resources on your User page! I will explore them as I attempt to learn more about editing. TrudiJ (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs in templates

Following up on your input at WP:VPP#Refs in templates, you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Templates#Refs in templates. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi StarryGrandma, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Response and question from Janice Lourie

I received your helpful note on my talk page and I am not sure where I should have thanked you for it.

Two weeks later I think it is here Everything you say is correct. I raise my hand and say ready and willing. Thank you for giving me my best 90th birthday present. I also saw your edit and appreciate the updates. I am confused now because my name has disappeared from the noticeboard and I wonder are we still engaged in forward motion? Am I asking this in the right place?Janvermont (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Janvermont (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Janvermont. I am still working on this. I am going to take out some of the material that I couldn't find sources for. Has biographical material about you been published anywhere? It doesn't need to be online. Have you had an artist's bio associated with any of the exhibitions? StarryGrandma (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Jan Lourie to your recent question

 I have recently been interviewed by Tufts University for an article. I'm not sure where they plan to publish it .I will ask and let you know. On August 11 a film crew will come here to make a video of my history for a new show of mine now being hung at the Tufts University Art Center. Thank you for persuing this work.Janvermont (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Heart

Hello, I love Science its my favorite subject. When I go back to school am aiming at getting 100% in it, to achieve that I need to understand on human body.Please advice on how to find this info. Lady Pakun .k (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]