User talk:SusanLesch/Archives/2020/March
 | This 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. |
Thank you for your efforts to improve Minneapolis. I have a concern about the fairness of an RfC you started today, which could otherwise be rewritten to read "Magnolia677 made an edit last December that I don't like. No one has since reverted it. What's your opinion?"
Out of fairness, in your sandbox please post:
- a copy of the original text
- a copy of my edit summary
- a copy of the text following my edit.
Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Magnolia677, would you please edit my sandbox to say whatever it is you'd like to say? I would appreciate it if you kept our proposed text intact. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Magnolia677: You've said you find this RfC to be unfair. Would you please resolve your complaint? After today unless you say something I will consider the matter resolved. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for formally closing the RfC on including expert/public opinions in articles about Korean musicians. Your finding that this content is appropriate for those articles should help protect equitable standards in Wikipedia for all musicians, regardless of nationality.
The user, who originally deleted that content, deleted it again after I had restored it based on the communal consensus documented in Wikipedia's policy. Their edit summary stated, “There is no guideline that encourages such pedestrian writing in the lead ... 'is known for their talented vocals' isn't proper English and shouldn't be in the lead”.
The deleted writing is comparable in grammar and content to the featured article on U2, which includes similar phrases in its lead, such as “Popular for their live performances” and “they had become renowned globally for their live act”.
Even if the content had been poorly written, Wikipedia's Essay on Overzealous Deletion states that this is an invalid reason to delete,[1]
Would you be able to advise me on how best to handle this situation now? Apparently that user is an administrator, just in case it affects where to take the case from here. Another factor that might make a difference is that a second RfC involving the same user was closed with the conclusion that their deleted content can be included in articles.[2].
Thanks again for your work in making Wikipedia a better place.
Hyuny Bunny (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Hyuny Bunny. Could you please explain which article you are talking about? What did you want to add? Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, SusanLesch. I'm very grateful for your willingness to examine this case further. Would the following diff provide the information that you requested? [3] I'd really appreciate any advice that you can offer. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Hyuny Bunny. I am happy to give my two cents but this is my last post on this matter because I have other things to do this week.
- 1) In the RfC I wrote that per WP:AESTHETIC, that Wikipedia policy has room for the opinions of prominent critics and reception by the general public. In most articles that means a reception section at the end of the article, for example, Girls' Generation#Legacy. That does not mean you can insert a sentence in the first paragraph. And I agree with Drmies that "is known for their talented vocals" is ungrammatical. It simply does not parse in the English language. Why don't you start a new Legacy section?
- 2) Maybe you could consider the other side of this argument a bit? User:Drmies has been editing Wikipedia since August 2007. You started, what? Six months ago? The U-KISS article is very lucky to have such an experienced editor who I have seen elsewhere to be wise and fair.
- Best of luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, SusanLesch. I'm very grateful for your willingness to examine this case further. Would the following diff provide the information that you requested? [3] I'd really appreciate any advice that you can offer. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
At Talk:Minneapolis#RFC on city history, you write "as in this text" with a link to User:SusanLesch/sandbox. But your sandbox now has two different versions of text. Which version are editors supposed to comment on? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Greetings, Magnolia677. I have added another version and named each section. Does that address your concern? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I would suggest the "recent" version be titled "pre December 18, 2019", or something like that, so each version is put into context. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Two days ago I asked you to edit my sandbox so that you were happy with it. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I would suggest the "recent" version be titled "pre December 18, 2019", or something like that, so each version is put into context. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
March 2020
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Minneapolis#RFC_on_city_history. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. WP:RFC#Publicizing an RfC specifically states "Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased". You left messages on the talk pages of 10 editors inviting them to comment on the RfC, yet of those editors, many had no history of ever editing Minneapolis, Minnesota or their respective talk pages. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Susan, you are allowed to contact, editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article, editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), and editors known for expertise in the field, among others. I don't know everyone whom you notified, but those I do know appear to fit within these fields. Kablammo (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help. I put a notice at the top of the RfC. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for McCoy Tyner
On 7 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article McCoy Tyner, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
April 2020 at Women in Red
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Duluth
Thanks for returning a few photos at Duluth. I don't get angry at editors very often but I am just furious about the removal of so many photos at the article. As time permits I plan to return them where I feel they are appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Susan, I can hardly say how grateful I am for your edits at the Duluth article. It is so good to have backup after the thousands of hours I, like many others, have spent on trying to produce the best WP articles. My mom and my Aunt Rose both, both early Duluth teacher's college grads, smile down on us in gratitude for our work on the Duluth article.
... Gandydancer (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
You need to stop
I made several edits today to improve Duluth, Minnesota, deleting many low-quality, irrelevant and duplicate images, and improving the structure of the article. Since then you have been describing these edits as "unhelpful" and "disruptive" on various talk pages. You don't own these articles, and your disparaging comments are unwelcome. Please redact your comments and stop accusing me of disruptive editing. If you have issues with my editing, take it to ANI. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Pardon me, Magnolia677. Calm down please. I believe I made it clear earlier that I do not have a reservoir of good health to converse with you right now. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)