Hello, Beccaynr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the ((admin help)) template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Please see my user page for an explanation of my request. Thank you!

Beccaynr (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If all the COI editors we had on Wikipedia were as good as you, we wouldn't need a COI policy at all... You've done excellent work expanding the article, and I for one have no concerns about your editing of it. As far as further improvements go, admins aren't necessarily the best folk to ask for help (when we're wearing our admin hats, we generally just do technical stuff like deletions, blocks and discussion closures), but instead, you might want to try:

• Nominating the article at Today's articles for improvement
• Asking for assistance at WikiProject Biography
• Putting the page up for Peer review
• Asking the Guild of Copy Editors to give the article a once-over

Thanks on behalf of Wikipedia for your work in improving the article; I hope you enjoy the process and continue to be a Wikipedian! Yunshui ^雲_水 07:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the encouragement and additional information about helpful resources! I look forward to learning more and continuing to contribute to Wikipedia, and I greatly appreciate your assistance. Beccaynr (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your addition of Noam Chomsky's name, didn't know he had written an introduction and supported the defendants. Nice work. I created the template, and was both active in the anti-war movement and was a journalist at the trial. Actually was in the room with just a few people when the eight were formally indicted and fingerprinted. It was an interesting time, and the people who stood up against the Vietnam War turned out, in the course of history, to be correct (even Robert McNamara agreed). Thanks, and good to meet you. Randy Kryn 20:57 20 October, 2014 (UTC)

It seems I was editing the 1968 Democratic National Convention protest activity page (which you may want to take a look at) - which I hadn't looked at since early March of 2013 - at the same time you were editing the template. Means nothing in the long run, but fun nonetheless (as few edits have gone up on that template). Randy Kryn 21:17 20 October, 2014 (UTC)

I'm still getting the hang of Wikipedia (especially the communication functions), but thank you so much for your comments and encouragement - I have a small pile of books published in the late 1960s and early 1970s that I am using as sources for additions. Very nice to meet you! Beccaynr (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about the violent radicals as supporters of the Chicago Seven, who had organized nonviolent protests? They don't seem to fit the template, at least to me, and after you put the weather folks on there I read the page and aside from an comment about the timing of their violent actions there was nothing about supporting the Chicago Seven in a meaningful way. And the weather people page also, amazingly, doesn't mention Richard Elrod, who I believe was paralyzed in their Days of Rage demonstration. Lots of people 'supported' the Chicago Seven, maybe the template should just be for active supporters who came to the trial. I remember Dustin Hoffman being there in support, and I interviewed him as he was leaving, but I've never seen another source on his visit (and just remembered it in fact). Anyway, I'm just grumbling, as there was and still is a large gap between nonviolent organizers and participants of a movement and those who come to an issue to harm, hate, and destroy. The two really didn't mix in the '60s era, at least from what I could tell (although Abbie Hoffman dispersed information on using violence to achieve a goal, I don't think he ever used any of that personally). Okay, end of me moaning about having those characters on the template. Personally I 'identified' more with the Phil Ochs, Pigasus type of activist, and never considered using violence to combat violence, nor did the people I knew at the time who were active in the anti-war movement. Randy Kryn 23:49 21 October, 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification about the 'Supporters' section - I had been thinking that the Weather Underground was probably a better fit for the 'Context' section, and I've moved it in the template. One of the reasons I added Bernardine Dohrn is because her page includes "On September 26, 1969, Dohrn was arrested again in Chicago during a rally in support of the eight men accused of conspiracy concerning the riot during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, who were being tried on riot conspiracy charges." Thank you for the perspective and feedback. Beccaynr (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WU seems like a good fit for context. Dohrn was, I believe, an unindicted co-conspirator, and all of them probably wished they had made 'the show' themselves (it's odd that the government just indicted men and no women, Anita Hoffman could easily have been sitting alongside her husband). It's good to have someone working on the template, and by putting my attention on it again I added Country Joe McDonald (should have done so long ago). That Dustin Hoffman appearance interests me now, I'll google to see if a major media source reported on his visit to the courtroom and the defendants (after the days court session I saw him in one of the side rooms talking and yucking it up with Abbie Hoffman, Rubin, and some of the others). It's enjoyable rambling about this stuff, let me know if you mind me coming by here for rambling. I see on your user page that you are a relative of Lee Weiner, and I hope he is well and going strong, so maybe you can ask him about the Dustin Hoffman visit. I'll go look for a source now, and thanks again. Randy Kryn 10:52 22 October, 2014 (UTC)

It has taken awhile, but I finally have an answer and a source for your Dustin Hoffman question: "Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman also visited the courtroom soon after Midnight Cowboy had opened. They deliberately sat in the back of the spectator section rather than out on the front benches where the guests who had been specially invited by the defendants, prosecutors, or the judge would sit. They didn't want to possibly distract the jurors in case they were recognized. In our brief conversations with them, they were reticent in their opinions about how they thought the trial was going or how it might end, but they were entranced by our efforts to resist the government in the courtroom." Weiner, Lee. (2020) Conspiracy To Riot, p. 83. Beccaynr (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Groucho Marx on the template? I couldn't find any mention of the Chicago 7 in his article. I see you added a source to the Weiner page that Marx was asked to testify and declined, probably not enough to list him as a supporter. And hello again, I hope all has been well. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and that sounds good to me - I edited Groucho Marx from the template (pending further citation). Thank you for your feedback! Beccaynr (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Conspiracy: The Trial of the Chicago 8, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barry Miller. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why I certainly understand that critic's petspective (although I don't agree with it at all as Hampton was assasinated because of his politics and because the police felt threatened by him and Taylor was murdered because of sloppy trigger happy policing), We can't have every individual opinion, or even one because it opens that door, about connections in the film that aren't part of the movie. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clarify in my latest edit, and I do not think that my User page is an appropriate place for us to discuss what can and can not be included in the Reception section of the The Trial of the Chicago 7 page. If you would like to further discuss the issue, please take it up on that page so other members of the community can participate. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we worked it out. For future reference, editors are encouraged to message each other first to work out issues. If they can't come to a compromise then the talk page is a second step to get other opinions and hopefully reach a consensus. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I think the page is now more informative and synthesized after the addition of references that directly address the specific issue of the connection in the film. I thought the page's Talk page could be helpful because it had seemed to me like you were speaking to a broader policy issue, and that seemed beyond what we could resolve, but then I realized that the potential solution for the specific issue you raised was additional research and sources. I am glad for how it worked out, and I appreciate your contribution to the creative process. Beccaynr (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can't leave references like that. It doesn't follow Wikipedia standards and when it gets reviewed for GA they'll make us remove it. Hopefully you can format it into a note or add what's relevant in text. Let me know if you need help or have questions. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean about a note, but the deletion you have twice made removes the quoted text from the Kagan article and completely removes the Robinson reference and quote. I tried to fix it by using the citation formats you added but it didn't work. The original way it was written is an attempt keep the Reception section concise while adding key details, and if you have a way to fix it so the content is presented in the way it was originally intended, that would be appreciated. Thank you Beccaynr (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I'll fix it. Watch what I do so you'll know for future reference. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the direction you are taking, and I have an idea, but I don't want to step on your editing process... I'm going to try in a moment to add my idea, but I wanted to let you know, and thank you again, Beccaynr (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that all the text you added didn't appear on the page. It appeared as a long, incorrectly formatted reference that didn't link to anything in the citation. It just read as a long paragraph. Again, not on the page itself but in the reference. This is because the ref tags were placed in the wrong places. It's a process and I had to learn this as well. I wasn't trying to edit the content. I was trying to fix the reference and when I understood that you meant it to appear on the page I did that as well. It was extra confusing to me because of the way the grammar was structured and the way the references were formatted and because they appeared in the last paragraph. I thought maybe you were going for an in text note but then I just understood that you misplaced the tags. Always look at the page after you edit something. This way you would know what you had added did not appear as text, but rather as a long note on the reference after clicking it but with no proper link. Thank you. I hope you're understanding this better. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw the note on your userpage about unsuccessfuly trying to insert a picture of a wombat, so I've been bold and done this for you – I hope you like it (if you don't, you can of course just undo the edit. You can change the size by modifying the middle parameter, e.g. by setting it to 500px if you want the image to be a little smaller. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you thank you so much!!!!!!!! Beccaynr (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know I really appreciate the Barnstar. It means a lot and I'm happy that you have felt encouraged by me. Keep up the good work! Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That Barnstar is a much more precise recognition of your work than the kitten I was initially thinking about adding to your page - I've also been learning how to use the citation templates and cleaning up various pages I've previously worked on, and I very much appreciate your encouragement on continuing my learning process. Thank you again! Beccaynr (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Chicago Seven. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - the line flagged on the article currently has four references that I plan to do more to synthesize - I am trying to find a way to clearly describe the names of the attorneys involved and concisely describe what happened. Thank you again for your note and for the links to Wikipedia policies and resources. Beccaynr (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your full and detailed work in revamping and improving the Chicago Seven page Mayor Daley and the gang over at the first precinct would give you an in-house going over and a few light taps on the head to "teach ya the rules". Nice work, a much improved article, and what happens when a good editor steps up. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! My work on the Chicago Seven page is also helping improve my awareness and understanding of Wikipedia policies and practices, and some of my editing reflects that learning process as it has been happening in real time. What an adventure! And now a barnstar! Thank you again!!! Beccaynr (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jane Musoke-Nteyafas, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Musoke-Nteyafas (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to apologize that I didn't revert the re-addition of the MOS:DEADNAME at Mika Tosca. In the cloud of edits, I didn't notice that it had been put back! While I do think that there are reasonable arguments both ways, it should without a doubt stay out of the article until there's consensus (and probably it would be wise to wait on the AfD). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying so, I appreciate it. I have never previously addressed this issue on Wikipedia, and I have been interpreting MOS:DEADNAME as seeming to support a default in favor of privacy unless there is obvious notability under the past name (as described in the policy examples) or until there is a consensus about past name notability (and I think your point about waiting on the AfD is indeed wise). Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Hatchens were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Justin Brummer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Justin Brummer, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hatchens (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Beccaynr! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Hatchens (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Beccaynr, thank you for the useful additions you made to the article Catherine D. Wood. I created a article about her firm Ark Invest a few days ago. Unfortunately, it is now in the deletion discussion. I find this unjustified because this article clearly proves relevance with references to Bloomberg, CNBC etc.. I would be happy if you would support the retention of this article under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ark Invest. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afus199620 (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Afus199620: you may want to consider the Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list for assistance. I am concerned that your message to me does not appear to be in compliance with WP:CANVASS, including because you seem to be asking for my support with retention of the article instead of presenting the AfD discussion in a neutral manner. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not aware that WP:CANVASS existed. I will try Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list. Thank you.--Afus199620 (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on Gorman and "The Hill We Climb". I've credited you on Template:Did you know nominations/The Hill We Climb. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Thank you very much, and for all of your work. That was the first time I have ever worked on such rapidly-evolving pages, and it has been quite a learning experience. Apologies for my delayed reply while I was mostly off site. Beccaynr (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Book Cover - Conspiracy To Riot, The Life and Times of One of The Chicago 7 by Lee Weiner.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

• File:Book cover, The Conspiracy, The Chicago 8 Speak Out, Dell 1969.jpg
• File:Sharon Avery and Lee Weiner, ca. 1970 Make a New Years Revolution, Kids.jpeg

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Book Cover - Conspiracy To Riot, The Life and Times of One of The Chicago 7 by Lee Weiner.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Book cover, The Conspiracy, The Chicago 8 Speak Out, Dell 1969.jpg. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lee Weiner 2020.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lee Weiner, outside Federal Building in Chicago during conspiracy trial, Feb 11 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sharon Avery and Lee Weiner, ca. 1970 Make a New Years Revolution, Kids.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For improving Sheila Elizabeth Whitton and recusing it from deletion, here's a barnstar. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have some ideas for additional contributions to the article and I am glad it has been kept! Beccaynr (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Hill We Climb, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after Amanda Gorman recited the poem "The Hill We Climb" at the inauguration of US president Joe Biden, she gained Twitter followers at a faster rate than the president? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Hill We Climb. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Hill We Climb), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hola! I noticed that you had worked on Rebecca Mammen John. Would really appreciate it if you could give a hand with Geeta Luthra. Thanks :-) Vikram Vincent 18:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! I have a few sources from my attempt to create an article for John (before realizing she already had one) that I still plan to incorporate, and as this relates to Luthra, they both appear to be pioneers in the legal profession, so I expect there are additional sources and that there is more to be said about Luthra. Beccaynr (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar experience. Went to create a page for Rebecca, wrote a draft and found there already was one with her middle name :D Vikram Vincent 05:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Also, I have been trying to find a source for when Luthra became a Senior Advocate, but have so far been unsuccessful, even at the Supreme Court of India website. If you have any ideas, that would be appreciated. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw Gabrielle Diana was kept after the AfD. Good job on working on that article and contributing to getting it kept. HEY definitely applied! Keep up the good work - ideally we’ll cross paths again and work on another article together! —Kbabej (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to leave you a message on your Talk page, to thank you for taking the lead on revising and expanding the article! It was great working with you, and I look forward to working with you again in the future. Also, while you were continuing to update the article and rescue sources, I went ahead and added it to the Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Rescue Barnstar
	For work on the article Disha_Ravi -- totally was not expecting this article to be so timely, and appreciating your eye on details to connect/expand on the article. Keep up the good work rescuing recent content! Sadads (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads: Thank you, and many thanks for all of your work - it is an honor to be part of this team effort. Beccaynr (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing -- yeah -- I was not expecting her to become this visible -- was like "she is notable enough, profiled in enough places, and looks like one of those youth activists who will be very visible in 6-12 months since she is getting all these press requests". Did not imagine government crackdown to be the path to visibility :PSadads (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Streisand effect is generating so much coverage, keeping up with it is a challenge, but I am confident that our ongoing work will continue to enhance and hone the article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm here a month later :D I enjoyed working with both @Sadads: and you :-) Vikram Vincent 18:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/toolkit-case-on-activist-disha-ravis-arrest-friend-says-she-is-a-soft-target-2371295 Vikram Vincent 05:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This report seems to provide some balance to the Reuters report about the reactions of some of her friends. I think both reports can be added to the Reactions section in a separate paragraph, perhaps above the paragraph that begins with Apoorvanand's comment. Beccaynr (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC) And there may be information from this Quint report that can be included; I need to rest and think on it, but thank you for bringing the link to my attention. Beccaynr (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add it cause I have a COI. Look up his name on the wiki as he is notable. Vikram Vincent 16:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My follow-up question was going to be about notability besides having an in-depth news article, and this more than answers it. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hola! I cannot comment on Vageshwari off-hand. I do know that the interpretations of GNG is going to contextually vary. On a lighter note, if we take Geenakumari as a baseline then I should have an article in my name :D Vikram Vincent 06:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I generally struggle with comparing AfDs because it is antithetical to my training and experience as an attorney - they seem like trial court decisions that are not binding precedent, and at AfD, I worry we could get bogged down in arguing about whether they are comparable or not. I do recognize they can be persuasive, but ultimately, it seems like the strongest arguments are made on the facts (sources) available for an article and the relevant guidelines and policies, so I try to keep focused on that aspect of the discussion. And maybe you should have an article ;-) Beccaynr (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2021 don't

With my limited legal education through practice, I agree about the legal thought process but feel that the Wikipedia approach has its advantages. W.r.t. article on me, hypothetically I am not sure how it would be positioned. Current sources don't do justice to any aspect :D Wait! Let me do something that crosses BLP1E ;-) Vikram Vincent 10:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, would you be able to have a look at this essay I wrote while participating in a contentious discussion. I saw the discussion from the POV of contextual claims. Maybe you may be able to highlight improvements https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vincentvikram/Always_keep_context_in_mind_when_arguing_claims Thanks, Vikram Vincent 15:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I was just thinking about some of this, but in terms of composing a reply to your comment above. Through my work on various articles, I have been learning about some of what has been happening in the India legal system, and it somewhat reminds me of the substantive due process revolution in the United States, with the caveat that additional research is needed. Despite my increasing awareness of the contexts, I do avoid suggesting notability exists simply because of the context I could otherwise provide - in theory, the context could apply to an AfD discussion such as Geenakumari, but per Wikipedia policy, not without RS saying so, and I find it challenging to research this in depth with my access mostly limited to English-language sources. On the other hand, I am not sure how to address what appear to be assumptions raised in discussions that seem to be subjective 'not notable' claims based on what you describe as a "gold standard" context. My thoughts are in process on all of this. However, like I have said in AfD discussions, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and per the policies and guidelines that form the core of the encyclopedia, will replicate the systemic bias that has excluded marginalized topics from significant and in-depth news coverage, but, it also seems to be only a matter a time before RS may exist to better support notability claims. In the meantime, your Law section kind of reminds me of WP:CCC, and I am also wondering if there needs to be a section for BLPs specifically, because this seems like a particular application of the larger concept. It also may be helpful to first write smaller essays (the Marxism-Leninism section seems like it could become its own essay), and then incorporate them into a larger umbrella essay. I think if all of the current sections get built out, this essay could become massive, and it may be more easily readable and easier to develop and revise if various sections have their own forums for discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, I'd suggest you adding your thoughts regarding the AFDs as a small example.. Vikram Vincent 04:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vincentvikram/Always_keep_context_in_mind_when_arguing_claims#Articles_for_deletion_(AFD) Vikram Vincent 09:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Disha Ravi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Walker Report, Rights in Conflict, 1968 Signet paperback cover.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Beccaynr reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: ). Thank you. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for withdrawing the report. Beccaynr (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for saving the article. Regards. -- Titodutta (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Titodutta: Thank you - your work was a very strong foundation for the article, so thank you very much for that as well. Beccaynr (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Beccaynr, and welcome to Women in Red. While it's good to see you are now an official member of the project, I see you have concentrated much of your past rescue work on women's biographies, sometimes with remarkable results. In addition to this work, you might also be inspired to create new articles from scratch, perhaps in connection with our monthly priorities. If you haven't already done so, you might find it useful to look through our Primer for creating women's biographies. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193 Online events: New: Art+Activism | VisibleWikiWomen Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: thank you! Yesterday I started preliminary research for Angela Glover Blackwell and got a little overwhelmed because there was so much. I have not successfully created an article from scratch before, so I am thinking that I would use the AfC process and then use the WIR banner to add it to the article alerts page. Thank you again! Beccaynr (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course welcome to use AfC but valid new articles are sometimes refused for a variety of reasons. I and other WiR editors would be happy to review and help you along with your first few new articles. Just start them in your user space, using the sequence "User:Beccaynr/title of new article". Then let me know when you think they are ready for main space. Angela Glover Blackwell certainly seems to deserve an article. She's very much in the news these days.--Ipigott (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using my user space sounds like a great plan - I will let you know when I have a draft for review. Thanks again! Beccaynr (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Ipigott:, I have a draft ready for review at User:Beccaynr/Angela Glover Blackwell; there is more I could add, and I think the Works section citations need help, but any feedback or guidance you have at this point would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft looks fine and I have moved it into main space. I see you have not included her year of birth but there seem to be references to her growing up in the 1950s. Maybe it would be a good idea to add Category:1950s births. You'll see I've added other categories, some of which could be adapted to African-American. As for photographs, I see several come up on Creative Commons.--Ipigott (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I look forward to continuing to work on this article and with the WiR project! Beccaynr (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(sideline comment) You do not need AFC for an excellent draft such as the one described above!--- Possibly (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I have been reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Law for additional opportunities to create articles, and I very much appreciate the support. Beccaynr (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help in improving the Institute for Social Ecology article. It was recently relisted for deletion for some strange reason. I'd really appreciate your input. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Article rescue citation
	Your contributions to Melissa VanFleet were critical to saving her from deletion! Performance above and beyond the call of duty. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork! Teamwork!! Teamwork!!! Beccaynr (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi ! I am still learning Wikipedia and I really appreciate your help on Downs and Ros :) I would love to keep expanding on that gallery network and I am so, so glad that the page wasn't torn down ! Thank you so much for saving the page ! Thanks again :) - t. TayaCornett (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TayaCornett: Thank you! I am finding it takes awhile to acclimate to Wikipedia, but User:Ritchie333's page has a wealth of information I've found helpful, including but not limited to the WP:SQUIRREL essay, which I certainly identify with, and I'm happy to have the opportunity to do so with regard to the Tara Downs article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The real props for WP:SQUIRREL goes to MelanieN; we were chatting about something or other, when she mentioned she was like "a dog who'd spotted a squirrel" working on some article, then noticed I'd started improving it as well and wondered if it was a more general theme amongst Wikipedians. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you pinged me on the article, it definitely was a 'look! Squirrel!' moment for me! Beccaynr (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333's guide to extreme article rescue

I suspect some of you are wondering how I come across these articles, and here's a basic guide:

• On my userpage is the following code : * [[Dumpster diving]] : [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Template%3ADb-a7&namespace=0 A7s] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Template%3ADb-a11&namespace=0 A11s][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Template%3ADb-g3&namespace=0 G3s] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Template%3ADb-g10&namespace=0 G10s] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Template%3ADb-g11&namespace=0 G11s] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Template%3ADb-g12&namespace=0 G12s] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Template%3ADb-g13&namespace=118 G13s]. Copy and paste that somewhere convenient, and you'll have a bunch of "dumpster diving" links which give you fast access to articles with speedy tags. The most likely ones to rescue are A7, then G11 and G12. I wouldn't worry about the others.
• Speedied articles are sorted by date. If a new one appears right at the top, it means it's an old article tagged for speedy. That's usually suspicious.
• If you are convinced an article does not meet the A7 criteria, improve the article to make it obvious and remove the tag. You at least need to have one independent, reliable source, or a link in the article that's an obvious redirect. I usually use the edit summary "decline A7, add source" and "decline A7 per WP:ATD-R" respectively.
• For G11 and G12s, if the article's lead looks good enough to expand into an article, trim it down to the lead, preserving sources if necessarily. In the case of G12s, copyedit the entire lead so there's no close paraphrasing left.
• Do this regularly for 3 years, then file a Request for adminship. (Well, it worked for me).
• Important note : most CSDs meet the criteria. Don't expect to be able to rescue them except every now and again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neat! It took a couple of attempts, but I figured out how to get it working in my sandbox. And this: User:Ritchie333/Unreferenced women BLPs is a wide open field, filled with WP:SQUIRREL. Beccaynr (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went back through all the AfD discussions I've done metrics for and curated some of the STEM women coauthors who very likely meet NPROF but don't have WP articles. If you're into page creation and want some ideas I've put a table up on my userpage (I also linked to it in the Women Scientists WikiProject). Thanks again for always keeping the discussion so respectful (even when I would get a bit snarky)! JoelleJay (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you might also be interested in this spreadsheet I've been maintaining for years of eponymous STEM women (well, it started out as such, but then expanded to include STEM women who made major contributions without having things named after them. The actually-eponymous ones are bolded). There's a detailed discussion on this WiR TP where I explain how this might be useful for acknowledging women's contributions in ways other than page creation. Anyway, feel free to leave a comment whenever you come across someone with an eponym I'm missing! JoelleJay (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoelleJay, I have been meaning to reply for awhile now, and I will be sure to keep a lookout, although as may be obvious by now, STEM is not my field. However, it looks like it is time to have an article on Tameka Hobbs (Miami Herald, 2020), including due to sources that seem to have been missed at the past AfD (Tallahassee Democrat, 2018), (Tallahassee Democrat, 2017), (New York Times Magazine, 2015), and I appreciate you bringing her to my attention during our discussion. I did not want to get into the details of what I felt were essentially trial-court level opinions during our discussion (I may need to get over this tendency) but that did not stop me from researching the points you were raising. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beccaynr, I'm glad you found more sources for Dr. Hobbs! I don't know as much about academic notability in the humanities since Scopus doesn't index them well, but it looks like you've found coverage that could raise her to GNG and possibly NPROF C7, so good work! I thought our discussions on Dr. Anand were really enlightening and productive, and I'm disappointed the closer's argument wasn't particularly deep or coherent (like, at all...). It seemed to really come down to our interpretations of SIGCOV and the additive properties thereof. I was pretty confident the individual news pieces didn't meet SIGCOV, but at the same time there was this surreal AfD where I felt similarly confident and it was closed as no consensus, so I was hoping whoever closed the Anand AfD would give a good assessment that could provide guidance in the future. Oh well, I guess... Anyway, I hope you'll stay active in the academic bio arena since we definitely need more people skilled at finding and summarizing sources :) Take care! JoelleJay (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, JoelleJay! I am more comfortable in the humanities field, and particularly anything that may fit under a broad banner of political science or sociology. I also followed up with the closing admin for clarification on Dr. Anand, and found this explanation helpful: "In the case of BLPs all sub notability guidelines are subordinate to the GNG as the community does not accept that we should be hosting inadequately sourced BLPs. Whether prof acknowledges this or not that is the wide practise across the encyclopaedia and is what drives my approach when balancing GNG against SNG. Around the edges there could be cases where a firm pass of an SNG might hold against a clear GNG fail but in the vast majority of cases where the GNG is clearly not met and its a BLP than a standalone article isn’t going to be the right outcome." And that surreal AfD is an example of why I am hesitant to rely too much on past AfDs... but I look forward to working with you in the future - I very much appreciate your contributions to the discussion and all of your insights. Beccaynr (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196 Online events: New: Plants & gardens | Gender studies New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

I redacted the one comment. Please let me know if anything else should be removed. It's not worth having our conflict get too personal or hurtful. Best wishes and happy editing.4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: in my experience, it is a benefit to discussions about the content of an article to focus on the evidence, not the person making the case. I do not wish to have a conflict with anyone, so I will continue with my focus on the content at AfD and article Talk pages. Beccaynr (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True. I only mentioned you because of the WP:HEY argument, which required that I alert other editors to the fact that I questioned the validity of that. It wasn't meant to be personal. Please don't feel like I am picking on you. I am this hard and consistent on all AFD reviews. I want us to get along. Thanks for catching my error, I confused the last two journal articles. Just a note, expert opinions are generally not considered evidence of notability. When trying to find sources for Geenakumari, it would be helpful to identify material where she is the main subject, and her importance as lawyer or advocate is established outside of the context of an individual case. I hope you are able to find a reference like that, because she seems like a great person. Best wishes.4meter4 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying so - I do recognize that we have different styles, and I am trying to keep that in mind. My understanding is that AfD reviewers look only at what is in the discussion, so from my view, it's not necessarily helpful to them from a source assessment standpoint to just mention that I made contributions, instead of linking to the actual sources. But I will explain more about my thoughts on the article in the AfD after I rev up Google Translate again. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I have tried to explain, e.g. in our discussion on your Talk page, diff, that I feel a style of communication focusing on me personally in forums about articles does not feel helpful or constructive. It had seemed like you recognized this with your previous good faith refactoring, but in the AfD we are now participating in, it feels like you are talking about me instead of the article, its sources, and the policies and guidelines. I continue to ask you to please just focus on the article discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, I am using an editing style at AFD that is typical on the encyclopedia among editors. I am actually being softer with you than what I typically am, by trying to explain policy kindly and patiently. I’ve been commenting at AFD for fifteen years, and I’ve rarely had anyone react this way. In general, when there are multiple comments at a thread and when we take issue with one person’s comments, its general policy to include that person’s name for the clarity of other readers. It’s not personal. Please understand this is how AFDs work.4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I think there is a difference between intent and impact, and per WP:CIVIL, It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Editors should take into account factors such as [...] whether a request has already been made to stop the behaviour. In addition, The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment: [...] belittling a fellow editor, which is what it feels like you are doing when you say things like "I hope this helps you understand what we are looking for at AFD," particularly in the context of our past discussions, because it feels like you are framing the issue as some kind of intellectual deficiency on my part instead of a good faith disgreement on how to interpret the policies as your peer. It does not feel like you are simply naming me in reply, and that is not my concern. This is why I keep asking for a focus on the evidence and not the person making the case. Beccaynr (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh, I added those words because I thought I sounded arrogant without them and mean, and you took offense to them. I feel like there is no winning with you, and that you are looking to find fault and read into my words tones and attitudes that aren’t there.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: With me, it isn't about winning, or finding fault. We are working with plain text, and misunderstandings happen. To clarify, your attempts to educate me on my Talk page, on article Talk pages, and at AfD are not welcome, and I request that you stop. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will happily stay off your talk page, but I can not agree to a WP:OWN of main space or AFD. We edit as a community, and ultimately I am going to treat you the way I would any other editor in an AFD discussion which is addressing you as an individual. The fact is you have a problem with my personality, and that is not my problem. I have been courteous to you, and I intend to keep being courteous. If I see you making a policy error, I will try to help you kindly at an AFD. I’m a teacher by profession and it’s in my nature to help people I perceive as making mistakes. If you choose not to learn from my experience, that is your choice. I’m not being condescending, I’m just being myself and I won’t apologize for that. I will not make myself less of an editor or make myself smaller for you. I wish you well.4meter4 (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I have not intended to communicate that I have a problem with your personality, and I apologize for anything I have said to make it seem like that is the issue. You previously had been gracious and recognized that some of your communication towards me was not interpreted as helpful, and I very much appreciated that, and hoped it meant you would adjust your approach. Perhaps you are aware of 'student-centered learning,' given your profession. I also believe there is a difference between wanting to help and actually helping, particularly when someone you are trying to help is telling you repeatedly that your approach is not working. I'm not so sure our academic and professional backgrounds are as relevant as the fact that we are all Wikipedians, and it is important for us to do what we can to foster a collegial and respectful environment. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am very much a proponent of student centered learning, and in a different context (other than an AFD), we probably would get along much better. Unfortunately, AFD is a somewhat antagonistic space by nature and articles are put under a great deal of scrutiny when it comes to referencing and weighing the significance of those references. It can be a difficult space to learn in, particularly if it’s an article you have invested time in that is on the chopping block. I myself have had articles deleted that I cared about, and I learned a lot about wiki policy from that experience.4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not asking you to change how you edit on Wikipedia - I am asking you to adjust how you communicate with me, by only focusing on the articles in discussion forums about the articles. It is much easier for me to learn by doing (i.e. 'problem-based learning,' or experiential learning), perhaps because I'm an adult, although I suspect many theories of adult education are relevant to childhood learning, and there isn't a need for a dependent student/teacher hierarchy there, either. I don't need to be personally antagonized in order to learn, and if anything, I find it interferes with my understanding. But I have been hopeful that we can work through this, including because you seem to like opera, and I like opera, and that has got to mean something. Beccaynr (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Always good to meet another opera lover. Just wanted to let you know, I supported your draftify recommendation. I think that 1994 article is a promising lead as evidence for GNG, and it would be good to have some more time to collect resources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thanking you from the bottom of heart for expanding the article of Divya Gokulnath. Your help means a lot to me. YogeshWarahTalk 14:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogeshwarah: Cheers! I am one of Kichu's talk page stalkers, and I sometimes edit articles like a dog who has seen a squirrel, so I am happy to help where I can. Beccaynr (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccanyr my friend, I would like to ask your assistance. This draft Draft:Rajaram Amrut Bhalerao seems to be about a notable person. But I have concerns with its neutrality. Your assitance will be helpful for me to make it better so that I can move it to mainspace. Hope its fine for you. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kichu, I have made some edits for neutrality, and please let me know if you think there is a need for more. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Beccanyr. I just accepted the draft. It has been nice working with you. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beccaynr, please have a look at this Draft:Supriya Menon, is it ok now? YogeshWarah^Talk 04:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yogeshwarah, I will review the article more after I have had some sleep, but I think a Career section should be created, with sources and information about her past journalism career, and detail about what she does now as a producer. Beccaynr (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, the subject is not notable to have an independent article in my opinion. It can be merged into Prithviraj Productions Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kichu, I am also concerned, because per WP:NOTINHERITED, Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG, and without additional sources, it appears to be WP:TOOSOON, including because most of the films have not been released yet. However, it seems possible that in the future, there may be notability per WP:FILMMAKER, if sufficient sources discuss Menon's role, at minimum per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. But the main article can be developed in the meantime, per WP:PAGEDECIDE and the WP:NOTGOSSIP policy, Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. All that being said, I very much appreciate the theme of creating more complete encyclopedic content that I see developing in Yogeshwarah's work; it will not always be immediately possible based on the available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Gokulnath, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With many, many thanks to Yogeshwarah for identifying this subject, creating this article, seeking feedback, and finding many of the sources. I just hit the 'resubmit' button after my latest round of edits. :-) Beccaynr (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beccaynr. Hope you are doing well. The Draft:Ahomisation seems a notable one and a good topic. But it is not written in an encyclopedic tone. If you have some free time to spare and is interested in remodifying this draft, I request your help to do it, so that I can move it into mainspace. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend! Hope you are doing great. I've created a draft on Draft:Deepinder Goyal., who is the founder and CEO of Zomato. Can you please have a look? Some problems are pointed by the reviewer. Actually, I don't understand that.

Thank you YogeshWarah^Talk 07:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]