Jump to content

User talk:Chetsford/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

2020 NCAA Division I Baseball season

What No Article. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Defender's Quest rejected

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.

Hi, mind telling me your reasoning behind rejecting Draft:Defender's Quest as an article? You stated it has "Insufficient RS to demonstrate GNG" despite it having 4 RS cited in the article itself and even more as potential references.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. Metacritic is a review aggregator; the Gamasutra article is written by an officer of Level Up Labs and is, therefore, not WP:INDEPENDENT; and "destructoid.com" demonstrates no evidence of being a RS (it is not, itself, sourced by unambiguously RS). That leaves two routine reviews in something called RPGamer which, without delving into whether or not that is an RS, is simply not WP:SIGCOV. If there are additional sources you didn't include, you'll need to include them. The reviewing standards of AfC specifically disallow reviewers from conducting a WP:BEFORE; all responsibility is left to the person making the submission (i.e. you). Chetsford (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
According to WP:VG/S, Destructoid is indeed a trusted source if the content is an official review. (See WP:VG/S#Situational sources). RPGamer is also a trusted source (See WP:VG/S#Genre-specific) and counts as significant coverage, not to mention the SIGCOV in the number of other reviews linked from Metacritic. It seems like you are the one who hasn't conducted any research, at the very least you haven't gone over what is and isn't a reliable source before jumping into reviewing videogame articles.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, the Gamasutra article is not self promotion, but a WP:PRIMARY source. It doesn't appear motivated solely to sell more copies of the game or as advertising. Obviously primary sources cannot demonstrate notability on their own but they are allowed to exist in articles if there are other RS that do.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
ZXCVBNM I think your understanding of the consensus on Destructoid is not in sync with my reading. The motivation of a non INDEPENDENT article is irrelevant; it is fine to use but almost never contributes to N. Metacritic, as said, is a review aggregator. That leaves RPGamer which does not by itself constitute significant coverage and would not by itself even if it were the New York Times. Feel free to resubmit the article for a second opinion. There's nothing more I can do for you. Best of luck.Chetsford (talk) 07:29, 18 July 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.

Request on 16:34:36, 17 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by LewisOner


Hi, thank you for reviewing the page. You say Reliable sources but I tried to add the chemical counpounds, the traces they left, the process in pictures but not a single image is accepted by Wikipedia. Here's the message I get every time: We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. Please help!

LewisOner (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, LewisOner. It doesn't really matter what pictures you add as raw images are not WP:RS since interpreting imagery is WP:OR. Currently your article is sourced to Wikipedia which is not, itself, a reliable source, and a DOT.gov website which is fine as a WP:PRIMARY source but additional sources are needed to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Further, the name of your proposed article is "Lewis Bell" which suggests it is a biography, so it's unclear if you've combined two articles by accident, misnamed this article, or if Mr Bell is - miraculously - a human elastomeric protective barrier. Chetsford (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Request on 17:01:12, 17 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by LewisOner


Ok thanks a lot for the reply! I will work on it. And yes, ahaha, you're right. I did not find how to edit the page's title, it should be HRCSA. Still looking at where to edit this. Have an idea? Thank you so much for your time and effort.

LewisOner (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi LewisOner - I've moved the page for you. Chetsford (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Forum shopping

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.

I would appreciate if you could refrain from forum shopping, as you did most recently here and have repeatedly done in the past. Combined with your selective (mis-)characterization of issues when you do find a new forum, and your refusal to ping participants impartially, it suggests a pattern of behaviour that is ultimately POV-pushing and/or unCIVIL. It would be great if we could nip this in the bud, before it pushes us back to ANI. Thanks! Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've done something to upset you, but seeking feedback for purposes of clarification of a point in the forum dedicated to discussion of that very point is not forum shopping, per the Multiple Issue Carve Out: "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question." It is not unusual for a discussion about RS in the Talk page of an article to prompt a properly linked and related inquiry at the RS noticeboard, nor is it unusual for a discussion about an interpretation of a specific WP:NCORP criteria to prompt a properly linked and related inquiry at its respective talk page. To the separate issue of me "mischaracteriz"ing you, I am unaware of any instances where I have done that. Therefore, I would encourage you to raise that issue at ANI as I don't believe it is within my power to provide what it is you seek. I regret I am unable to offer you a response that you are likely to find satisfactory and hope you will accept, in advance, my apology in that regard. Chetsford (talk) 20:08, 17 July 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.

Forum shopping 2

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.

Your header and description of the "game manufacturer" issue, and your description of the Dream Pod 9 issue at DRV, are both plainly mischaracterized. The sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted in the previous Forum shopping section states, "Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." You might want to try that since, for example, "provided they manufacture science fiction games" was not something I or anyone else had suggested as a criterion for the NORG exclusion, and the "corporate article on a vacuum cleaner company" comparison wasn't intended to launch the DRV in a neutral manner, either.

Also note that I am not engaging emotionally about this topic and will not be doing so, either, at ANI. I would encourage you to do the same, and stick to facts rather than feelings. Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

"Your header and description of the "game manufacturer" issue, and your description of the Dream Pod 9 issue at DRV, are both plainly mischaracterized." I disagree, but I am sorry you feel that way.
"note that I am not engaging emotionally about this topic" Noted.
Chetsford (talk) 20:47, 17 July 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.

Please comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Harold Forsyth

Hello! Your submission of Harold Forsyth at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States Zouave Cadets

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United States Zouave Cadets you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States Zouave Cadets

The article United States Zouave Cadets you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United States Zouave Cadets for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The U.S. Air Force Blue

Hello! Your submission of The U.S. Air Force Blue at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

ygm

TonyBallioni (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, thanks - replied. Chetsford (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Otra Figuración

I've performed a move-over-redirect on Otra Figuración; you can now finish up the AfC process. GoldenRing (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, GoldenRing! Chetsford (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tel Aviv

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tel Aviv. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Clarence Ervin

Hello! Your submission of Clarence Ervin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Harrias talk 07:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

RFA passed

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Successful RfA

Congrats..The admins' T-shirt for you. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • BTW I see that you haven't created your adminstats page yet. That is something you will want; it is useful and kind of fun to see what you have been doing with your mop. For example, here is mine: Template:Adminstats/MelanieN You don't have to display it on your page if you don't want to; you can always reach it via a link like the one I posted to mine. See Template:Adminstats for how to set it up. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations and best wishes. (I am sorry I was offline and missed the RFA. I have seen your work and would have supported your RFA.) At least, you did not need the !vote and I can now add my congratulations! Donner60 (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You got it. I hope I can come up with something or you let me know something I can do! Donner60 (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Successful requests for adminship 2019.png
With 154 supporters, Chetsford's request for adminship is the eleventh to succeed in 2019.

DYK for Harold Forsyth

On 12 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Harold Forsyth, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Harold Forsyth, the Peruvian ambassador to Japan, is the father of a professional football player and husband of a beauty pageant queen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Harold Forsyth. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Harold Forsyth), 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, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hello Chetsford,

Congratulations on the successful RFA. I feel that I should take the time to acknowledge your courage and strength in the process. As I was going through my RFA parallel to yours, I cheered you on. Enjoy the mop. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice words, AmericanAir88. I felt it was unfortunate yours did not pass and wanted to strongly support both you and the other editor being considered had it not have had the potential to appear I was canvassing or support-swapping. I hope you'll consider putting yourself forward again so that I can. Chetsford (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you and suggestions

First and foremost, I would like to express my appreciation for reaching out to me. In all honesty, I liked your edit on the 1st Cav Band and just wanted to rescue some sources that I thought were credible and some information that accompanied it. I do believe that your edit was constructive anyway and that added stuff that wasn't already there. As for the issue with the NGB Bureau March, I think the best course of action (and I do realize this is a long sho is to make a combined list of military marches from the armed forces (like the Authorized marches of the Canadian Armed Forces). I will let you know if I can think anymore ideas ASAP. AyodeleA1 (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_22&oldid=910660148"