User talk:Chetsford/Archive 38

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

== Thanks ==

Thanks for the close. It's always great to read a thoughtful close of a tough discussion. Andre🚐 02:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it's always nice when the first Talk page message after a close isn't a complaint - ha! Chetsford (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Let's hope it sticks. I won't jinx it. Andre🚐 02:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Sorry to break from that! Firstly, I appreciate your effort in summarizing and concluding the RfC. There were a couple things I was hoping to get clarification on or possibly reconsideration.
While the RfC didn't reflect an overwhelming majority for discreated or neither, there seems to be a tangible inclination towards the term "discredited". This sentiment is drawn not only from those directly voting for "Discredited" but also from combining it with those favoring "Discredited and Controversial", as well as from some "Neither" votes that showed openness to the term if it's attributed. I would also like to say that the current wording received almost no support. With people initially supporting it mostly switching their vote to neither.
On the matter of source relevance, while 2022 sources remain valuable, it's crucial to highlight the potentially greater relevance of 2023 sources. Given the dynamic nature of many topics, these newer sources may present more current perspectives, which could shape the discussion in a more up-to-date manner. One of the overall issues with the article is it's reliance on pre-2020 sourcing, most of which coming out late 2017 to early 2018 when it was first being released. Now that more recent sources have had a chance to analysis the situation as a whole I those sources should be given more weight.
The importance of adhering to WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:DUE can't be overstated. The term "discredited", when supported robustly by reliable sources, aligns well with WP:DUE. Furthermore, attributing the term ensures that we're not contravening WP:WIKIVOICE.
Considering the feedback from the "Neither" camp, it's worth noting their lack of a clear, actionable alternative. This might necessitate a different weighing when assessing the overall consensus.
In sum, it seems there might be a stronger inclination towards the term "Discredited", particularly if attributed, than the closure suggests. But beyond that, even if not discredited, at least consensus against the current version. I do also want to close by reiterating that I appreciate you taking the time to close and give such a thorough explanation. PackMecEng (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
PackMecEng, that's no problem and no need to apologize.
First, I agree with you that the current wording received almost no support. However, per WP:NOCONSENSUS, in event of lack of support for a change in the status quo "the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal". Second, I'm cautiously inclined to agree that Discredited with Attribution (as opposed to Discredited in WV) probably represents the consensus. But it wasn't clear and obvious to me as many of the Neither !votes indicating their support for D-with-A were inscrutable and opaque, leaving enough ambiguity in my mind to tip it into No Consensus. My suggestion is to run a new RfC in which Discredited in WV and Discredited with Attribution are each presented as distinct options (in addition to Controversial and whatever else) with the understanding that editors should !vote for any or all options they would support.
Alternatively, I will certainly not object or be offended in any way if you request a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. This was so narrowly on the edge that additional insight might be beneficial. Chetsford (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, I think I will take a little time to consider that before doing anything. Thanks for the input! PackMecEng (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Appeal for deleted page

Hello, my page has recently been deleted and I'd like to make an appeal for it. My page was rejected due to lack of notability, however I'd like to prove why it is indeed notable. On the talk page of my draft I provided the three most relevant references, but I've been advised to also contact you personally in order to make this appeal. The three sources I've listed are notorious music magazines, where my subject Paul Jones gets featured as a guitarist in the bands Elastica and Linoleum. Both bands have Wikipedia pages where Jones is also mentioned. Since the music magazines I cited are printed and published in the late nineties / early two-thousands, I would like to share with you this drive where I scanned the respective magazines for you to see. In them, Jones is featured at large as a key member in the bands, there are direct quotes from him as well as pictures of him. Although my main sources refer to Jones as a guitarist involved in the Britpop movement of the noughties, he is still active and largely successful in the British music industry as an A&R manager for Rough Trade Records. This is why I believe his extensive career in music since 1994 is worthy of being published on Wikipedia, and his achievements as both a guitarist and an A&R manager prove its notability and relevance in the music industry. I chose to focus my sources on Jones' career as a guitarist, as they are the most notable; however, if you wish to see proof of his notability also as an A&R manager I am happy to provide separate sources for that as well.

Hereby the three sources:

1) Molenda, Michael (December 2000). "'The Art of Noise'". Guitar Player Magazine. p. 67-70
2) Jennings, David (April 1996). "'Floored Genius'". Melody Maker.
3) Disorder Magazine (July 2000). "Elastica - Their @rse, Our Place". p. 25–27

As I mentioned, these magazines are scanned in the drive linked above. Please consider my appeal and consider publishing this page. If you need any more information or proof, please let me know and I will be happy to send it or adjust my draft accordingly.

Best, ingridach Ingridach (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ingridach - thank you for your comprehensive message as well as providing scans of the articles in question.
Two of the articles you cite are long-form interviews with the subject of the article itself. As such — while they may be useful in citing uncontroversial, biographical information or providing attributed sourcing — they generally don't offer enough editorially independent content to establish WP:N. Though not a policy, the essay WP:INTERVIEW explains this more fully. The third article appears to be a mere glancing mention of Jones within the context of an album review for Linoleum and doesn't, therefore, contribute to WP:SIGCOV of the subject.
"Both bands have Wikipedia pages where Jones is also mentioned." While this can often be an indicator someone is potentially notable, generally interpersonal or organizational relationships do not, themselves, confer notability.
Having said all that, I'm inclined to believe that Jones is notable and his notability meets our requirements for a WP article. However, the Articles for Creation reviewing standards require that "Articles that will probably not survive [a deletion discussion] should be declined." and precludes reviewers from approving articles based on a casual suspicion that the subject is probably notable in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. The sources, as they currently exist, aren't sufficient to suggest that the article (IMO) will be likely to survive a deletion discussion were it approved. The fact that, after multiple attempts, no such sources can be found, reinforces this fact for me in that !voters will be unlikely to redeem it on the basis of WP:BEFORE.
To clarify, your article draft has not been deleted so, if this situation changes, you can always resubmit it at any time. Chetsford (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Chetsford, thank you for taking the time to reply. I also took my time to read and understand this, hence my delayed reply. I'll keep working on my page and try to find appropriate sources to prove notability. However, when I'm on the draft of my page I don't have the option to re-submit it at all. The only thing I can do is ask for advice, which I've already done. So how should I proceed in case I should want to re-submit my page in the near future?
Speaking of re-submission and asking for advice; is it possible to ask for another opinion on this? While I don't doubt your judgement and experience, I can't help but wonder whether another Wikipedia user would have a different opinion on my appeal and sources. I know that several members have seen the page and rejected it before, but since then I have updated my page according to their advice and feedback. Therefore, I would like to ask if it's possible to show/submit my page to several users, potentially to have this 'deletion discussion' that you mentioned. Looking forward to your reply. Ingridach (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Speaking of re-submission and asking for advice; is it possible to ask for another opinion on this? I was the fourth editor to decline your submission. Before I respond to your question, can I ask if you believe a fifth opinion is likely to result in a different outcome? Chetsford (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for David Dean (Texas politician)

On 5 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Dean (Texas politician), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David Dean served as general counsel to Texas governor Dolph Briscoe, a Democrat, as well as his Republican successor Bill Clements? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Dean (Texas politician). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, David Dean (Texas politician)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Atlantic Core Network Corridor

It's been four months since I submitted my draft for the Atlantic Core Network Corridor. Is there any specific reason why it still hasn't been approved? | Petnog (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Petnog - Articles for Creation is somewhat backlogged at the moment and reviews can take several months. Chetsford (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for the fast reply. Isn't it possible for you to review it? It's a small article, afterall. | Petnog (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Petnog - when I initially declined it, it was because it only had two sources that were insufficient to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. You've added several additional sources and it may very well now pass SIGCOV. However, the new sources are in Portuguese and I'm afraid I don't read Portuguese. I'm sure someone will be along soon to review it, though. Chetsford (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Estonia on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The Beatles (album)

Ok you protected it, struck yourself and removed the protection tag, but didn't unprotect? Not sure what you're intending on doing, but straggling the gator creek is dangerous :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

LOL - thanks for noticing that Hammersoft! I thought I'd unprotected it, but obviously my protection skills leave a little to be desired ... should be fixed now. Chetsford (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
No worries :) I make mistakes too (some doozies), but just wasn't sure what you intended. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Administrator changes

added
removed
renamed Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

NPP request

Hey @Chetsford, I wanted to accept your invitation to join NPP, and have requested again at WP:PERMS. I had previously requested per your invitation, but was declined. While I will be working on more articles, I would love to break up the monotony, by reviewing. Appreciate the encouragement. PD Slessor (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Lány Castle

On 14 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lány Castle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lány Castle (pictured) is the summer residence of the president of the Czech Republic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lány Castle. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lány Castle), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled revokation

Hi Chetsford, I see you granted temporary autopatrolled to PD Slessor on 3 December 2023 [1] based on a spree of creations of WP:NPOL articles. The first thing they did after getting autopatrolled, was creating an article about a company that got to AFD [2]. In my opinion, this history has all the red flags of autopatrolled gaming, the kind that some UPE companies are specialized in. In any case, had they created this article just before the request, I'm sure it wouldn't have been granted. So I would suggest pulling the perm now, since the user is not fit for it, and there doesn't seem to be a case for evaluating 90 more days. Best, MarioGom (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@MarioGom I appreciate the concerns raised regarding my recent article creation following the grant of temporary autopatrolled status. I understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia and assure you that my intent has always been to contribute positively to the platform. The creation of the article in question was done with the belief that it met the necessary standards, and I apologize if this was not the case. I am grateful for the autopatrolled status I was granted based on my previous contributions and am fully willing to have this privilege reevaluated. I am committed to learning from this experience and would welcome any guidance or feedback on how to better align my contributions with Wikipedia's policies. If it is deemed necessary, I am open to temporarily reverting my autopatrolled privileges while I work to demonstrate my understanding and adherence to the community's expectations. My contributions have mostly focused on underrepresented notable people from Kenya. If merely creating a page outside BLPs is something I should stay away from, I will. PD Slessor (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Hoping I don't lose perms after only making only one (possible) mistake. PD Slessor (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
(by talk reader) @PD Slessor: MarioGom is correct: you made a slew of articles about Kenyan politicians and then suddenly switched to a business. The accusation against you is that you gamed the system, likely as an undeclared paid editor. Because autopatrolled is a position of trust, we don't have to give you the benefit of the doubt. You should have stuck to clearly-notable subjects. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your concerns, @Chris troutman, and understand why a slight shift in editing topics might raise questions. My interest in Kenyan politics and the startup in question were driven by a genuine desire to contribute diverse and meaningful content to Wikipedia. I promise that I have not engaged in any paid editing or conflict of interest activities. I think my prior contributions, which have spanned a range of topics, reflect my commitment to enhancing Wikipedia with quality information. I understand the importance of sticking to clearly notable subjects and will take this feedback into careful consideration in my future contributions. I would welcome the opportunity to continue participating in the Wikipedia community the way I have been, as I am dedicated to upholding the integrity and principles of the platform. I value the trust placed in Wikipedia editors and am committed to regaining any trust that may have been lost due to this misunderstanding. Not sure what more I can do/say to prove my creation was genuinely made with good faith. PD Slessor (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Its also worth noting that: The page in question, isn't a company offering a service or selling products, they are an environmental data tech company working to solve the climate data gap in Kenya. PD Slessor (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This is irrelevant to the notability criteria (WP:NCORP), which adds to my point that autopatrolled right should be revoked. MarioGom (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
We should all understand and respect the importance of adhering to WP:NCORP in evaluating the notability of subjects (person or not) on Wikipedia. The decision to create the page for the organization was influenced by their ethical approach and significant contributions to environmental sustainability, particularly in an underdeveloped region. I believe these factors lend a broader significance to their story. The accusation of UPE is unfounded; my contributions have always been made in good faith without any vested motivations. I highlight their ontology because it speaks volumes about their ethics, and I believe demonstrates that they are the type of group least likely to try and engage a "paid editor"
To acknowledge: focusing on the company rather than an individual like Kate may have been an oversight on my part. I appreciate the feedback and am willing to learn from this experience to better align my contributions with Wikipedia's standards. Im dedicated to enhancing the platform with valuable content and am open to constructive dialogue, but I think some of the cynicism and disdain is a bit unfair. PD Slessor (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Please, stop replying with ChatGPT. MarioGom (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Your response to my explanation is "stop replying with ChatGPT"? At this point, I am going to respectfully step away. Thanks for the insight Mario PD Slessor (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Pinging MarioGom, Chris Troutman, Novem Linguae, PD Slessor, MarioGom. Based on the above sequence of events, I'm concluding PD Slessor's trial period of Autopatrolled. The WP:PROMOTIONAL tone of the Amini (startup) article indicates additional experience may be warranted before permanent extension of this user right. Chetsford (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks for giving me the opportunity, sorry to have let you down. I want to express my gratitude, for the opportunity to serve as an auto-patrolled editor even if it was only for a period. During this time I have gained knowledge. Truly appreciate the trust that was placed in me. I fully respect the reasons behind the decision to conclude my trial period. Being a part of Wikipedia has been challenging and insightful. PD Slessor (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I also noticed the quick switch from minor politicians to writing about companies. To be honest, I don't think the issue here is additional experience being required before permanent granting - I don't think they are suitable to have AP. firefly ( t · c ) 21:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
That may be the case. Chetsford (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
this comment smells GPTous jp×g🗯️ 09:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Kanye West-Drake feud

Happy New Year pal. Hope 2024 is going well so far for you. I'd like to ask why the article doesn't sound formal. I revised the article yesterday after another reviewer declined for a similar reason. I have reviewed the draft and compared with the other articles I drew inspiration from like Shaq-Kobe feud and Murder of Tupac Shakur and I have tried to align the tone and structure of the draft to these articles. Kindly assist. Thanks a lot Serrwinner (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

"Drake and rapper Pusha T had also been beefing from 2011 until that point with the two artists going back and forth dissing each other."
"On August 23 2021, Drake reignited their beef by dissing West on the Trippie Redd track “Betrayal”"
etc. Chetsford (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback pal. I have made necessary adjustments in relation to those two phrases to make it sound more formal. Many apologies. I have resubmitted the draft after making necessary changes. I am kindly requesting if you can review it now after the changes. Draft:Kanye West-Drake feud Serrwinner (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Chetsford. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/James Townsend (abolitionist).
Message added 08:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Music of the NOAA Corps

A tag has been placed on Music of the NOAA Corps requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Music is already listed on the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps page

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jforzani (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I have declined the speedy deletion request as it did not specify any valid WP:CSD. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:2997:D11A:B16B:FCC0 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_38&oldid=1195370542"