User talk:Beccaynr/Archives/2023/June

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.

I'm curious how you would proceed in this situation

Hello! I wanted to briefly ask you about how you would deal with a situation that popped up on BLPN (it's under Lana Rhoades).

While under dispute, one of the people who was in favor of including the name added the above persons real name as a redirect to the article, after it was removed for being a possible violation of BLPNAME.

I'm unsure of how redirects work, if it is allowed, but it came across as being a bad faith attempt to get it included in a backdoor approach.

I glanced at the policies regarding redirects, but didn't run across anything that caught my eye. You have way more experience so I figured I would ask you.

Oh, sorry one last question - if I was curious how to word a future post, so that it was less wordy than my usual posts but wanted to run it past a few users I respected before publicly posting it, is there a way to do that? I thought about putting it into draft space, but that wouldn't make a lot of sense since it's public. I haven't looked into Sandbox yet, but I think it might be an option. I wanted to run something past you and another user, with your permission (and if time permits on your end, of course)

Thank you so much for all your help, and advice!

Awshort (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Awshort! I reviewed the BLPN discussion, found the redirect, reviewed the redirect guideline, and left a comment in its own subsection in the BLPN subsection, because as I mentioned in my comment there, I am not particularly familiar with how these issues relate, but I think it seems relevant for discussion participants to consider, or at least know that it now exists.

As general advice, I think your participation in the discussion has been thorough, policy-based, and thoughtful - I would suggest that even when you are pinged, it does not necessarily require a response. You have stated your position, and this is fairly well-attended discussion, so I am not sure there is much more to say at this time - it may be helpful to wait for the discussion to continue, and consider writing a concise summary statement later to address multiple points, if it seems that this would add something new to the discussion and not simply repeat what you have already said. The oft-cited WP:BLUDGEON essay has further guidance on the art of effective discussion participation.

Probably the best advice I can offer at the moment is to avoid making statements during a content discussion, even careful ones like you have made here, that imply or suggest possible bad faith by an editor. Even a cautious statement can derail a discussion about content because an editor may seek to defend themselves, counter-allegations of bad faith may be made, etc etc; I find it helpful to consider how with the varying levels of experience in editors as well as the various ways policies and guidelines can be interpreted in good faith, there will be disagreements about what is and is not appropriate at any given time, and that fortunately, we primarily have the consensus model of decisionmaking to find resolutions. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Very active at WP:AFD. Notable for article improvement efforts & carefully presented arguments. Consistently makes detailed justifications of their !votes and notable for finding lesser known sources. A long list of bios is impressive. Avoids the rush of extreme keep or delete camps. Very active at various WP:WIRED endeavours and significantly helps reduce gender imbalance on Wikipedia.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Sunflowers

Beccaynr

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning June 25, 2023

Very active at WP:AFD. Notable for article improvement efforts & carefully presented arguments. Consistently makes detailed justifications of their !votes and notable for finding lesser known sources. A long list of bios is impressive. Avoids the rush of extreme keep or delete camps. Very active at various WP:WIRED endeavours and significantly helps reduce gender imbalance on Wikipedia.

Recognized for

AFD's and Bio's

Notable work

Chicago Seven

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 21:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Beccaynr (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Been less active recently due to work (still meaning to circle back to UHAB when I get the chance lol), but just saw this and wanted to say congrats!!! An incredibly deserved and possibly overdue reward! Best, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi TheTranarchist! Thank you, and I am glad to hear from you! And UHAB is also on my neverending to-do list - please always feel free to remind me, especially if you are returning to actively working on it. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)