User talk:Beccaynr/Archives/2024/February
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Laurie Buckhout
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)
- 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)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Teamwork Barnstar |
| Very impressive watching you edit Vasudha Dalmia. Thank you. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
- 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)
Women in Red March 2024
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Abigail Larson
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- In this connection, you might be interested in the research proposal: Addressing Wikipedia’s Gender Gaps Through Social Media Ads.--Ipigott (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Too much detail?
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)
- 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)