User talk:Chetsford/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge award

The Red Maple Leaf Award
This maple leaf is awarded to Chetsford for creating the article Canadian Academy of Independent Scholars during the third year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


Please assume good faith, cease casting aspersions, cease bullying

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.

This is not your first personal attack, casting aspersions, bullying, and failure to assume good faith. I hope you don't think this garbage is an expression of maturity and gravitas. All this condescending tripe about "passion" is just more of the same personal attacks you've been spewing. Your postings go on and on and on and on, both here and on the AfD page. But when you do it, what do you call it? Not "passion"? Not tendentious? When I reply to you, that's excess passion, and not valid. Why aren't all your replies to me an invalid expression of overemotional passion? Why can't others' points of view be equal to yours, all of us editors who are here to build an encyclopedia, but happen to reach different conclusions?

You are continuing to uncharitably post slurs on other editors, failing to assume good faith. Instead of respectfully acknowledging a difference of opinion, you trivialize those who disagree with you by accusing them of being carried away, being overly emotional, and having ulterior motives like advocacy or other POV pushing. Some have said the sources justify notability, and instead of respecting that you denigrate it as motivated by admiration or belief in the "goodness" of the subject. Have I accused you of hating the subject? Of having excess passion? I only ask you to explain your choices. Instead of reasoned arguments, you label my ideas as WP:POINTy, coming from an administrator, that implies a threat to ban or block me, for disruptive editing. For the crime of a content disagreement! It's bullying.

I've asked for an explanation for why you feel compelled to include sources that mention the blog journalism medium, yet the sources that mention print, newspaper, and radio don't seem to interest you. It's a valid question. Instead of answering, you shift back to this bullying and invalidating the contributions of other editors.

You flaunt this air of superiority when you are the one who has repeatedly posted blatantly erroneous howlers, misrepresenting the policies of WP:NOR[1] and WP:Notability[2], and repeatedly making assertions of fact while refusing to cite evidence. No acknowledgement of your errors. Just deflection and put downs. It's fine to be in error, I make mistakes all the time. But such blunders, and inability to admit error, don't look so good alongside this superior, condescending attitude.

Please stop casting aspersions. Please stop insulting and trivializing other editors. If you don't wish to answer a question, simply don't reply. If you do reply, comment on content, not on the contributor. It can't possibly be that difficult for you to find something to do other than taunting and sneering at others who happen to disagree with you. Administrators never tire of complaining of all the tedious chores they have heaped upon them, yet you seem to have time for nothing better. Enough, please. I'm aware of how absurd it is to have to deliver a lecture like this to an admin, but that is for you to answer to. How is it that an administrator doesn't know any better? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland - you have repeatedly told me you feel as though you're being threatened and I've repeatedly assured you that no one, including myself, is threatening you. It seems that you have now interpreted even this assurance, itself, as a threat. While I'm sorry you're upset I'm not certain — given the futility of my efforts to date at reassurance — there's much more I can do to assuage your concerns. If you feel you are being threatened by me, I strongly advise you report the matter to WP:ANI, to the foundation's Safety office, or to a trusted third-party editor. If you feel this is an emergency that necessitates immediate intervention, you may want to connect to WP:CHAT. I wish you the very best. Chetsford (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

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.

  • Safety? You think that's funny? More snide condescension. What I asked of you was to stop being insulting, condescending, superior, and trivializing others. Instead you have chosen to do more of the same. You have not tried to 'assuage' anyone's concerns. If you honestly wanted to do that, you'd have said nothing, or said you will try to comply with policy, without even having to admit fault.

    You have gone on treating this as a joke. Apparently you're certain that you'll get a way with it. I hope, at last, you've gotten this childish behavior out of your system, and will finally drop the stick. If you can quit while you're ahead, you will get away with it. I have no idea what this chat suggestion refers to, but rest assured, nobody in their right mind would want to chat with you. I very much hope this is goodbye. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Noted. Chetsford (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your spirited defense, and knowledge of, Wikipedia's Notability policies, particularly at the Erica C. Barnett deletion discussion. You and SportingFlyer have been around here for a Coon's age and really understand the difference between GNG and SNGs. Doug Mehus T·C 03:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Erica C Barnett.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Erica C Barnett.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Doug Mehus T·C 21:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Chetsford:, if you want to renominate for CSD under, I think, criterion G7 (author requests deletion), please feel free, but I'd appreciate any guidance you can give on why administrator GB fan is either correct that G8 doesn't apply to files or whether my interpretation of G8 for files is correct. Always appreciate your insights and comments. Many thanks! :-) Doug Mehus T·C 22:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Dak To

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Dak To. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Emanuel Moravec, "about the collaborationist Minister of Education of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, the dismembered Czechoslovak state created and occupied by Germany during World War II. Prior to the occupation of the Czech lands, Moravec was widely known as a leading proponent of democracy, and as a celebrated author and journalist."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

"Thank you today for Emanuel Moravec" - while this may be the first time in 60 years anyone has said that, I thank you for your thanks, Gerda Arendt! (j/k) Chetsford (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing. Safe travels.

--Ricochet21 (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for R. W. Buzzard

On 3 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article R. W. Buzzard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although judge R. W. Buzzard has been criticized for drinking and carrying a loaded gun on the job, he has also personally intervened in fistfights and pursued fleeing suspects? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, R. W. Buzzard), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

AFC Review

Hello Chetsford, I created a page named Draft:B. K. Misra, could you please review it? Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vm1207 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_27&oldid=935544006"