![]() | Cher Scarlett has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 7, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cher Scarlett article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Cher Scarlett" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
![]() | A fact from Cher Scarlett appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 November 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Women in Red: #1day1woman (2022) | |||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Created by GorillaWarfare ( talk). Self-nominated at 05:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Good to go.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
06:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
To
T:DYK/P3 without image
That is not her birth name. She has claimed on private messaging boards that she is hiding her identity due to an abusive ex, however being photographed and appearing in national newspapers undermines any such desire to stay anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.240.43 ( talk) 15:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you cite another wiki page about a public person where a pseudonym is referenced as their name, yet zero mention is made that this isn't their birth name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.240.43 ( talk) 21:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
"due to privacy reasons", are you citing... me... on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.240.43 ( talk) 22:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you at least agree that the article should at the least *mention* that she's operating under a pseudonym? It feels deceptive to have an article about a person, show their photo, post their name, talk about many aspects of their life, yet not let the reader know that the name cited, is not actually their name. This is even mentioned in the WaPo article (citation #1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoform ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
It isn't her name, she doesn't use that name professionally, she's mentioned she's seeking to change it (which is an unverified claim), but she has yet to do so. Your citation about sensationalism and privacy is moot when I've never said her real name should be published, merely recognizing (by her own admission, as written in WaPo) that she's operating under a pseudonym. I can't figure out why you feel this isn't worth noting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.240.43 ( talk) 17:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
she doesn't use that name professionallycitation needed As for the rest, I can't figure out why you feel this is worth noting. It's the only name by which she is publicly known, and we don't normally go out of our way to determine or note if a person's name isn't their birth name in an article unless they were previously notable under a different name. To use my previous example, Laverne Cox doesn't note that she wasn't born with that name, either. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
In addition to Cher, Kate Rotondo is cited in this article about speaking out against Apple not paying employees equally. Inferring that Cher was the only person to speak up about this is misleading: https://www.theverge.com/22700898/apple-company-culture-change-secrecy-employee-unrest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotthistoo ( talk • contribs) 06:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Stating that Kate Rotondo isn't notable enough to be mentioned is the definition of marginalizing. She's been vocal about pay inequality at Apple and is named in the cited article alongside Cher Scarlett as doing so. She deserve to receive appropriate recognition for her contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotthistoo ( talk • contribs) 07:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Great suggestion! Any tips on what inspired you to write an article about Cher and what drives your timely responses to suggested edits? That would be helpful in writing about the many other women at Apple who have equally spoken out about misconduct whom you feel aren't notable enough to mention. Change at Apple and the tech industry at large has been a collective effort, and this article as it stands grossly discredits the work of many others and exaggerates the work of one cited individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotthistoo ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Apple worker organizations##AppleToo and Tech union (two pages I created) are both better places to include documented leaders/activists than a bio of one person. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Secondly, we're all volunteers here. We write about what we want to write about, and we don't write about what doesn't move us to do so. No editor here is under any obligation to write about "other women at Apple," especially not in this article.
Thirdly, Igotthistoo is being a bit absurd here. Stating that the subject's doing a certain thing doesn't "infer," imply, assert or any other buzzword that no one else is either.
Moreover, "notable" on Wikipedia doesn't mean what an inexperienced editor like Igotthistoo might believe. A "notable" subject is one that qualifies for an article under one of a number of notability guidelines; in this case, WP:BIO and WP:GNG, which stipulates that a subject that has received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources is likely to be notable. Stating that Kate Rotondo isn't "notable" doesn't mean she's unimportant. It means that the level of coverage for her to qualify for a Wikipedia article hasn't been proven to exist. Beyond that, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not here to right great wrongs or pay attention to the people you want it to pay attention to. The precondition for qualifying for an article is that the world has noticed you, through the aforementioned "significant coverage." If the world hasn't, then that's that. Perhaps you're upset that the media's focused on Scarlett instead of some of these others, but forcing the media to pay attention to the people you want it to notice is beyond our remit, or our powers. Ravenswing 20:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I've just completed expansion of the Blizzard section, but left out a couple of things in trying to improve from previous edits across subjects. I did not include the bit about her alleged harasser allegedly filing a complaint against her with his then girlfriend because it was only in one of the sources, [1] and I couldn't find it listed in the grid with information about the reliability of sources I was sent previously. Should it be included?
My other question relates to the "problematic handling" of the incident I expanded on about the revenge porn incident from years earlier. The sources seem to imply that Scarlett was the reason the moderator had their privileges revoked, and I added the contradiction between what Scarlett said and what she later reported, but there doesn't seem to be any clarification about what the "problematic handling" was other than that she alleges she was blacklisted from the company. I'm not sure if this should just be cut or what to do to improve it, because I'm unclear on what Blizzard did wrong, unless she lied to Kotaku in 2018. - SquareInARoundHole ( talk) 00:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I previously removed Chelsey Glasson from this article as the mention seemed to be WP:UNDUE with the single source listed being about Scarlett at the time of the addition. The source did not connect Scarlett and Glasson, other than that they both wrote to the same senator. [2] Since making that edit, I have added Glasson back in, after seeing significant coverage of her researching other former Google workers, and following the coverage of the bills, as it seems both parties are working with the senator on the law, and both were due to Ifeoma Ozoma, regardless of any previous connection. Welcome to a discussion if other editors disagree. SquareInARoundHole ( talk) 05:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
References
@ GorillaWarfare: She's in the newscast at around 2:45, I found the link on her website and double-checked that she was in it, and they cite her as "snowboarder". [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquareInARoundHole ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
References
I've place a cleanup tag atop the article. The placement of early life and education in a section towards the end of the article seems to go against the typical order of how biographies are written on Wikipedia (see MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL). — Mhawk10 ( talk) 22:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@ SquareInARoundHole: Regarding this edit: You wrote that "The company refused at the time, despite having said in the proxy statement to the SEC that it would add the language to all separation agreements in the United States." However, looking at the source, it seems that the proxy statement was published on January 6, 2022. Scarlett's settlement discussions with Apple were happening in late 2021 (the settlement was reached in November 2021), prior to the proxy statement. I think the wording confuses the timing a bit. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I attempting to doing autobiogrpahy of her real (birth) name - (Redacted). Should I expect resistance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Redacted) 19:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC) (Redacted)
(editing) - Now it appears the sysop has removed the incline cited information. What is the procedure to file a grievance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Redacted) 20:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) 23:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Picking this one up. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
"no valid reason for deletion". Cheers! 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 19:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
There are some discrepancies with Cher's education. Juanita High School did not have a junior astronaut program and did not offer biotechnology classes in the early 2000s when she attended. She also never took the SAT.
I am concerned that while she has accomplished much that is worthy of praise, this kind of embellishment of her own biography is unnecessary. Fourragere ( talk) 17:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove that Cher participated in Junior Astronauts or Biotechnology Education at Juanita High School. Neither of these was offered at Juanita High School when she attended. She also never took the SAT. Fourragere ( talk) 18:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
She attended Juanita High School in the early 2000s, and says she earned a nearly perfect score on the SATshould be removed as it could be misinterpreted to mean that she studied for the SAT at Juanita High School. What do you think? M.Bitton ( talk) 21:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change:
Cher Scarlett (born 1984 or 1985) is an American software engineer and writer. She is a workers' rights activist and has organized staff at Apple, Activision Blizzard, and Starbucks.
To:
Cher Scarlett (born 1984 or 1985) is an American workers' rights activist, software engineer, and writer. She has organized staff at Apple, Activision Blizzard, and Starbucks.
Move to the "Early Life and Education" section:
Scarlett, who has bipolar disorder, experienced struggles in her early life, leading her to drop out of high school and attempt to overdose. Self-taught web development skills from her adolescence in the late 1990s allowed her to overcome a lack of formal education and build a software engineering career after the birth of her child.
Move to "Career and Activism" section:
Scarlett's experiences and observations in a male-dominated occupation led her to become a workers' rights advocate and critic of technology and corporations. Kebw ( talk) 19:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update Facial recognition software criticism:
Scarlett filed a complaint with the Washington State Attorney General's office in January 2023. More than 400 matching images were removed, but searches by WIRED found not all of the images were removed. [3] [4] 2600:6C50:7F7F:20BE:F5BB:9151:88A1:79A2 ( talk) 08:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Cher doesn't work for controlzee anymore shouldnt that be removed? 2601:1C2:5380:50B0:EABC:7BC6:7C91:909 ( talk) 15:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add charge filed by NLRB against Mozilla. [5] 97.113.91.214 ( talk) 19:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fix weight, reduce, and update
Change the entire paragraph beginning with: In April 2022, The Washington Post reported that Scarlett believed she may have been turned down for positions at Mozilla and Epic Games due to her labor organizing at Apple. She filed charges with the NLRB against both companies, which as of April 2022, were being investigated.
To: In April 2022, The Washington Post reported that Scarlett believed she may have been turned down for positions at Mozilla and Epic Games due to her labor organizing at Apple. She filed charges with the NLRB against both companies which were investigated by the NLRB. In December 2023, the NLRB issued a novel charge against Mozilla for refusing to hire Scarlett. Because Scarlett is not in a union, the decision indicated increased scrutiny into violations of NLRA Section 7, which covers employee and applicant rights to participate in any collective action. [6] [7] [8] 2601:19B:4B81:5FB0:79F8:A63E:661A:7913 ( talk) 12:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Cher Scarlett has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 7, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cher Scarlett article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Cher Scarlett" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
![]() | A fact from Cher Scarlett appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 November 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Women in Red: #1day1woman (2022) | |||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Created by GorillaWarfare ( talk). Self-nominated at 05:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Good to go.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
06:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
To
T:DYK/P3 without image
That is not her birth name. She has claimed on private messaging boards that she is hiding her identity due to an abusive ex, however being photographed and appearing in national newspapers undermines any such desire to stay anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.240.43 ( talk) 15:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you cite another wiki page about a public person where a pseudonym is referenced as their name, yet zero mention is made that this isn't their birth name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.240.43 ( talk) 21:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
"due to privacy reasons", are you citing... me... on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.240.43 ( talk) 22:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you at least agree that the article should at the least *mention* that she's operating under a pseudonym? It feels deceptive to have an article about a person, show their photo, post their name, talk about many aspects of their life, yet not let the reader know that the name cited, is not actually their name. This is even mentioned in the WaPo article (citation #1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoform ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
It isn't her name, she doesn't use that name professionally, she's mentioned she's seeking to change it (which is an unverified claim), but she has yet to do so. Your citation about sensationalism and privacy is moot when I've never said her real name should be published, merely recognizing (by her own admission, as written in WaPo) that she's operating under a pseudonym. I can't figure out why you feel this isn't worth noting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.240.43 ( talk) 17:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
she doesn't use that name professionallycitation needed As for the rest, I can't figure out why you feel this is worth noting. It's the only name by which she is publicly known, and we don't normally go out of our way to determine or note if a person's name isn't their birth name in an article unless they were previously notable under a different name. To use my previous example, Laverne Cox doesn't note that she wasn't born with that name, either. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
In addition to Cher, Kate Rotondo is cited in this article about speaking out against Apple not paying employees equally. Inferring that Cher was the only person to speak up about this is misleading: https://www.theverge.com/22700898/apple-company-culture-change-secrecy-employee-unrest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotthistoo ( talk • contribs) 06:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Stating that Kate Rotondo isn't notable enough to be mentioned is the definition of marginalizing. She's been vocal about pay inequality at Apple and is named in the cited article alongside Cher Scarlett as doing so. She deserve to receive appropriate recognition for her contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotthistoo ( talk • contribs) 07:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Great suggestion! Any tips on what inspired you to write an article about Cher and what drives your timely responses to suggested edits? That would be helpful in writing about the many other women at Apple who have equally spoken out about misconduct whom you feel aren't notable enough to mention. Change at Apple and the tech industry at large has been a collective effort, and this article as it stands grossly discredits the work of many others and exaggerates the work of one cited individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotthistoo ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Apple worker organizations##AppleToo and Tech union (two pages I created) are both better places to include documented leaders/activists than a bio of one person. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Secondly, we're all volunteers here. We write about what we want to write about, and we don't write about what doesn't move us to do so. No editor here is under any obligation to write about "other women at Apple," especially not in this article.
Thirdly, Igotthistoo is being a bit absurd here. Stating that the subject's doing a certain thing doesn't "infer," imply, assert or any other buzzword that no one else is either.
Moreover, "notable" on Wikipedia doesn't mean what an inexperienced editor like Igotthistoo might believe. A "notable" subject is one that qualifies for an article under one of a number of notability guidelines; in this case, WP:BIO and WP:GNG, which stipulates that a subject that has received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources is likely to be notable. Stating that Kate Rotondo isn't "notable" doesn't mean she's unimportant. It means that the level of coverage for her to qualify for a Wikipedia article hasn't been proven to exist. Beyond that, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not here to right great wrongs or pay attention to the people you want it to pay attention to. The precondition for qualifying for an article is that the world has noticed you, through the aforementioned "significant coverage." If the world hasn't, then that's that. Perhaps you're upset that the media's focused on Scarlett instead of some of these others, but forcing the media to pay attention to the people you want it to notice is beyond our remit, or our powers. Ravenswing 20:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I've just completed expansion of the Blizzard section, but left out a couple of things in trying to improve from previous edits across subjects. I did not include the bit about her alleged harasser allegedly filing a complaint against her with his then girlfriend because it was only in one of the sources, [1] and I couldn't find it listed in the grid with information about the reliability of sources I was sent previously. Should it be included?
My other question relates to the "problematic handling" of the incident I expanded on about the revenge porn incident from years earlier. The sources seem to imply that Scarlett was the reason the moderator had their privileges revoked, and I added the contradiction between what Scarlett said and what she later reported, but there doesn't seem to be any clarification about what the "problematic handling" was other than that she alleges she was blacklisted from the company. I'm not sure if this should just be cut or what to do to improve it, because I'm unclear on what Blizzard did wrong, unless she lied to Kotaku in 2018. - SquareInARoundHole ( talk) 00:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I previously removed Chelsey Glasson from this article as the mention seemed to be WP:UNDUE with the single source listed being about Scarlett at the time of the addition. The source did not connect Scarlett and Glasson, other than that they both wrote to the same senator. [2] Since making that edit, I have added Glasson back in, after seeing significant coverage of her researching other former Google workers, and following the coverage of the bills, as it seems both parties are working with the senator on the law, and both were due to Ifeoma Ozoma, regardless of any previous connection. Welcome to a discussion if other editors disagree. SquareInARoundHole ( talk) 05:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
References
@ GorillaWarfare: She's in the newscast at around 2:45, I found the link on her website and double-checked that she was in it, and they cite her as "snowboarder". [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquareInARoundHole ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
References
I've place a cleanup tag atop the article. The placement of early life and education in a section towards the end of the article seems to go against the typical order of how biographies are written on Wikipedia (see MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL). — Mhawk10 ( talk) 22:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@ SquareInARoundHole: Regarding this edit: You wrote that "The company refused at the time, despite having said in the proxy statement to the SEC that it would add the language to all separation agreements in the United States." However, looking at the source, it seems that the proxy statement was published on January 6, 2022. Scarlett's settlement discussions with Apple were happening in late 2021 (the settlement was reached in November 2021), prior to the proxy statement. I think the wording confuses the timing a bit. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I attempting to doing autobiogrpahy of her real (birth) name - (Redacted). Should I expect resistance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Redacted) 19:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC) (Redacted)
(editing) - Now it appears the sysop has removed the incline cited information. What is the procedure to file a grievance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Redacted) 20:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) 23:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Picking this one up. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
"no valid reason for deletion". Cheers! 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 19:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
There are some discrepancies with Cher's education. Juanita High School did not have a junior astronaut program and did not offer biotechnology classes in the early 2000s when she attended. She also never took the SAT.
I am concerned that while she has accomplished much that is worthy of praise, this kind of embellishment of her own biography is unnecessary. Fourragere ( talk) 17:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove that Cher participated in Junior Astronauts or Biotechnology Education at Juanita High School. Neither of these was offered at Juanita High School when she attended. She also never took the SAT. Fourragere ( talk) 18:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
She attended Juanita High School in the early 2000s, and says she earned a nearly perfect score on the SATshould be removed as it could be misinterpreted to mean that she studied for the SAT at Juanita High School. What do you think? M.Bitton ( talk) 21:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change:
Cher Scarlett (born 1984 or 1985) is an American software engineer and writer. She is a workers' rights activist and has organized staff at Apple, Activision Blizzard, and Starbucks.
To:
Cher Scarlett (born 1984 or 1985) is an American workers' rights activist, software engineer, and writer. She has organized staff at Apple, Activision Blizzard, and Starbucks.
Move to the "Early Life and Education" section:
Scarlett, who has bipolar disorder, experienced struggles in her early life, leading her to drop out of high school and attempt to overdose. Self-taught web development skills from her adolescence in the late 1990s allowed her to overcome a lack of formal education and build a software engineering career after the birth of her child.
Move to "Career and Activism" section:
Scarlett's experiences and observations in a male-dominated occupation led her to become a workers' rights advocate and critic of technology and corporations. Kebw ( talk) 19:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update Facial recognition software criticism:
Scarlett filed a complaint with the Washington State Attorney General's office in January 2023. More than 400 matching images were removed, but searches by WIRED found not all of the images were removed. [3] [4] 2600:6C50:7F7F:20BE:F5BB:9151:88A1:79A2 ( talk) 08:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Cher doesn't work for controlzee anymore shouldnt that be removed? 2601:1C2:5380:50B0:EABC:7BC6:7C91:909 ( talk) 15:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add charge filed by NLRB against Mozilla. [5] 97.113.91.214 ( talk) 19:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fix weight, reduce, and update
Change the entire paragraph beginning with: In April 2022, The Washington Post reported that Scarlett believed she may have been turned down for positions at Mozilla and Epic Games due to her labor organizing at Apple. She filed charges with the NLRB against both companies, which as of April 2022, were being investigated.
To: In April 2022, The Washington Post reported that Scarlett believed she may have been turned down for positions at Mozilla and Epic Games due to her labor organizing at Apple. She filed charges with the NLRB against both companies which were investigated by the NLRB. In December 2023, the NLRB issued a novel charge against Mozilla for refusing to hire Scarlett. Because Scarlett is not in a union, the decision indicated increased scrutiny into violations of NLRA Section 7, which covers employee and applicant rights to participate in any collective action. [6] [7] [8] 2601:19B:4B81:5FB0:79F8:A63E:661A:7913 ( talk) 12:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)