User talk:Chetsford/Archive 23

New Subject Entry

Hello Chetsford!

Thank you for your outreach and willingness to assist me.

I am writing my first Wiki article on fashion designer Marisol Deluna.

She meets notability and verifiable standards. We were perplexed why an article had not already been included, after studying her life and career in school.

Currently in my sandbox is an attempt for an info box. Is it possible to take a look at it? Followed the format of other articles, but it's not laying out properly.

Can't thank you enough. EM — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMETIB MAILLIW (talk • contribs) 06:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi EMETIB MAILLIW. I just looked at your sandbox. There are two issues with your draft. The first is that it appears your draft contains an infobox only with no actual content. The second, and more pressing, is that there are no sources of any kind. Wikipedia articles must have sufficient WP:RS to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Your infobox was not laid out correctly, so I've fixed that; I hope you don't mind. Chetsford (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy - I took the liberty of writing the first sentence of the article and adding a reference. Keep in mind, though, that a single reference will be insufficient. You should have enough WP:RS to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Let me know if this makes sense or you have any other questions. She looks like an interesting subject for an article! Chetsford (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. I have tried to post the article in my sandbox, but when asking for a preview, only parts of the content appear. Is this unusual? Is there another place I can post it to preview? As for my references, they are there, but can surely be improved.

For example- How would I format this link: https://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/13/style/weddings-marisol-deluna-jonathan-cole.html

Super thanks. EMETIB MAILLIW (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: Figured out why large swaths of the article were missing when reviewing. Used a <\ref> instead of a </ref>. So simple! As for reference formatting however, I noted quite a few incorrectly and could use some assistance. Many thanks again for your initial and continued Wilki help! EM EMETIB MAILLIW (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Proposed United States purchase of Greenland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Proposed United States purchase of Greenland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed United States purchase of Greenland until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC US Regime Change

Thank you for your help. I have to ask though, are you sure that absolute consensus is necessary? If consensus were possible, the RFC wouldn't be needed in the first place, after all. Is it not within guidelines to decide on a majoritarian basis, or on the basis of a WP guideline, like say WP:STONEWALL or simply NPOV? Best, GPRamirez5 (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

GPRamirez5 - I'm very sorry for my delayed reply. "Is it not within guidelines to decide on a majoritarian basis" It is not. Content and governance on WP is not guided by democratic principles, except in the election of the Arbitration Committee which is by majority vote. In all other matters, decisions can only be taken by consensus which is usually achieved by either incorporation of all legitimately expressed concerns or referral to policy which is, itself, formed by process of consensus. "or on the basis of a WP guideline, like say WP:STONEWALL" I saw no evidence of STONEWALLing occurring. Indeed, the breadth and intensity of discussion by the Oppose !votes was a contra-indicator of STONEWALL. "or simply NPOV" No argument was made, and supported without rebuttal, that failure to insert the content proposed, in the exact form in which it was written, would bring the article out of compliance with NPOV.

Having said the preceding, however, you should not feel as though my reply to you here constitutes any kind of "final word". If you feel the closure was inaccurate (which it well may have been), I'd encourage you to consider a closure review which can be filed at WP:AN. Chetsford (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Creation of a page

please sir i need your help about the creation of a pageBigboss18 (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

What kind of help do you need, Bigboss18? Chetsford (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The "Pending changes reviewer" you anointed at 16.08 is already abusing the privilege

The history is thus: on 18.08 I noticed a wrong HSV triplet for one of shades of brown in the article Shades of brown. Upon investigation, I discovered that there are 3 more wrong triplets, 4 in all. Which I fixed. Without logging in as I always do. While the article happens to be requiring review for IP-users, I expected no problem as wrong values are demonstrably wrong and the right ones, demonstrably right.

Now, the user Enivak decided to revert the change alleging "spam": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shades_of_brown&oldid=911401936 On my asking him why, if he isn't a bot, did he act like one, I got this: User_talk:31.13.16.106

Seems I was mistaken as to what the word "review" came to mean here. An user having no clue about the subject matter obviously cannot do it properly, but he still gets the article referred to him - and instead of doing his due diligence OR referring the thing to someone informed, engages in obstruction and wikilawyering.

If he didn't like the links as he alleges (despite the article already having just such a link for nearly every other HSV value, and for one of the 4 wrong ones), he could have removed the links and left only the fixed values; obviously I do not care about authorship, only the validity, or I wouldn't be doing my edits w/o login. But no.

As it is you who gave him the right that now went to his head, it is to you that I refer the problem.

Naturally, if you too prefer that Wikipedia continues to display demonstrably wrong information to users and search engines, fine with me; *I* for my own use will recalculate all the HSV triples from RGB anyway, for the whole colour list, now that I know they are compromised here. But other users not versed in colour science might be misled.

31.13.16.106 (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback 31.13.16.106. I've reviewed the editor's 10 most-recent pending change reviews as of this timestamp and 10 additional, randomly selected, pending changes, and am not seeing any pending changes decisions I'd characterize as incorrect, let alone abusive. As to the specific change on Desert Sand you made, it appears it may have been a good edit and, at least, brought the HSV value into alignment with the corresponding article of the same name. Without looking into it too deeply, it seems this might have been a bad revert.

Pending changes is designed to be a quick check of edits to articles that have experienced a high degree of vandalism. The necessarily perfunctory nature of pending changes reviewing coupled with the fact it's conducted by human beings, means that good edits by unregistered editors may, upon occasion, get reverted. The best course of action when this occurs is to initiate a conversation with the reviewer on their Talk page to let them know of the mistake. My experience has been that, nine times out of ten, that resolves the matter fairly quickly. While I see you did that, leading into the conversation by calling the editor "dumb" and "stupid" was unlikely to prompt a satisfactory outcome. Unfortunately, this is a basic reality of interpersonal contact with humans and one which is outside my ability to regulate or change.

I'd suggest trying to contact the editor again in a congenial manner and then calmly explain to them the situation. (One thing I find helpful when interacting with someone online is to try to imagine them physically present, then calibrating one's comments to mirror how one would speak to them in a face-to-face setting.) If, after that point, you're unable to find a satisfactory resolution, feel free to follow-up here. Thanks for your contributions. Chetsford (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your calm and reasonable approach. My use of the unfortunate adjectives was a reaction to useless waste of my time, however; writing a Perl script that checked and recalculated the whole of List of colors (compact) took a LOT less of it than this back-and-forth. (The results were less than stellar, BTW: 35 of displayed colours do not match the HEX code, 107 HSV triples do not match the displayed colour (15 of them do match the mismatched HEX instead); that is of 1537 colour names in total.) And I stay convinced that it's better not to apply for a duty, than to take it up and then do it without thinking; humans are supposed to be less error prone than bots, not more. 85.140.216.108 (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear IP, I replied you on my talk page. I was not "Wikilawyering";, i followed the procedures. Also, the last paragraph of your report to Chestford proclaims Wikipedia:Edit warring. If your edits are constructive, that's ok; if you go to replace all values with these you think are best, you may be blocked (not by me :-)). Also, you say you are correcct. Are *you* ( as you said *i*), actually correct? please check. Eni vak (speak) 15:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

As you can see from the numbers I give above, a complete fix for this "colour problem" would be quite an undertaking (and best solved by some kind of bot, once and for all). Even in the best of circumstances, I was not intending to fix more than a couple articles (the Shades of brown one and Taupe as those were the ones that made me aware that there IS a widespread problem). Given that the errors in List of colors (compact) do not even match the ones in the specific articles (as you can observe for the "Taupe Gray" color as one example; the list gets its HSV right while the article doesn't), finding every single instance would need yet another script, to scan the pages. So, most of those errors have nothing to fear from me. :-)

As to the correctness, the links I added (in imitation of those who did it before me) were just that - a proof that the given RGB value does indeed resolve to that specific HSV triple. (The specific site wasn't botching the calculation at present - while the one case that I had to fix where there WAS a link to its previous incarnation, makes me wonder if it did sometimes give wrong values in the past.) The formula is well known, there is a wealth of implementations out there, and anyhow if I erred in something so basic, users of my software would have crucified me LONG ago. :-)

85.140.216.108 (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"if I erred in something so basic, users of my software would have crucified me LONG ago" - 85.140.216.108 If you're inserting links, as a reference, to a website in which you have a pecuniary interest you must disclose that interest as provided for in WP:DISCLOSEPAY. Chetsford (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

No, the site in question has no relation to me or vice versa; it was just what a link from another HSV value in that same Shades of brown article has resolved at (they put a redirect from the old domain to this new one, it seems). Myself, I have an image editor to maintain (which is under the GPL anyway so no "pecuniary interest" can happen) of which colourspace conversions are a requisite, if small, part. 85.140.216.108 (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear IP, i would like you to check my new reply on my talk page. Generally, if you are correct and there is proof that you are, i will accept that; just do not add the link several times, and you will be right. I think this dispute arose from an tiny error from you and a tiny misunderstanding by me, follow the procedures and all will be right. Eni vak (speak) 14:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for The U.S. Air Force Blue

On 20 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The U.S. Air Force Blue, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "The U.S. Air Force Blue" started as an advertising jingle for United States Air Force recruiting ads? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The U.S. Air Force Blue. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The U.S. Air Force Blue), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Douglas Albert Munro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Creation of the NGB March

I looked into it and I realized that the only way you could really make a space for content on the NGB March was to make an article. That idea that I had which involved creating an article similar to the Authorized marches of the Canadian Armed Forces has already come into fruition (it's called American March Music). I also thought of creating an article in the same format as Music of the NOAA Corps article you created. Luckily, I made the article on the march myself (its here if you want to check it out). I could see why you didn't want to make the article as I had to search real hard to find the sources I could find. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I created the article and if you have any thoughts on it.

AyodeleA1 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

AyodeleA1 - fantastic! Can you nominate it for Did You Know? I can upload the music file to the article. Chetsford (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy FYI

Here I granted PCR to a user you've denied it to once. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your support for my unsuccessful RfA. Editors like you are the backbone of this project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)