User talk:Chetsford/Archive 21

DYK for Revolution of 1719

On 7 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Revolution of 1719, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Revolution of 1719 ended the rule of the Lords Proprietors in South Carolina? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Revolution of 1719. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Revolution of 1719), 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, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited North American Vexillological Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Olivia Jade Giannulli

Hello! Your submission of Olivia Jade Giannulli 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! Yoninah (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of French marquisates

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of French marquisates. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Dolo hospital airstrike

On 19 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dolo hospital airstrike, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Italy bombed a Swedish hospital in Dolo during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dolo hospital airstrike. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dolo hospital airstrike), 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) 00:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Olivia Jade

On 22 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Olivia Jade, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that while American social media celebrity Olivia Jade said, "I don't really care about school", she applied and was accepted to the University of Southern California? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Olivia Jade), 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) 00:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Brexit

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.

---

Could you please explain to me how a compelling case for the inclusion of this content might go?[1] Because frankly, I'm at a loss. This is easily the most embarrassing and shameful RfC I've ever seen: from the behavior of editors in it to the closure. It's absolutely dripping with anti-intellectualism and disdain for proper sourcing. Peer-reviewed research by recognized experts is dismissed as speculation, with editors rambling about how economists are idiots (while mind-boggingly citing examples that literally prove economists were right) and how data by the IMF may be falsified to intentionally hurt Brexit. And you count the votes as equal and determine no compelling case either way has been for the inclusion or removal of peer-reviewed research published by leading economists on something that has a massive impact on countless British lives and livelihoods.

I'm here to learn. Please instruct me how I should go about making a compelling case in a RfC. Because if I can't argue for the inclusion of one sentence of peer-reviewed research (on an encyclopedia which desperately needs it), something must be wrong with me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Snooganssnoogans:

• "Could you please explain to me how a compelling case for the inclusion of this content might go?" There are some tips on how to build a consensus here: WP:CON.
• "This is easily the most embarrassing and shameful RfC I've ever seen: from the behavior of editors in it to the closure." I'm sorry you feel that way. All closed discussions can be challenged at WP:ANB. I have no problem if you'd like to do so. When dealing with subjective subject-matter it is possible for an individual to make a wrong call. While I've closed many RfCs and have yet had anyone express dissatisfaction with any of those closes, there's a first time for everything and I would take no offense in having my reading of the discussion reviewed.
• "I'm here to learn. Please instruct me how I should go about making a compelling case in a RfC." Unfortunately, I'm not able to provide individualized instruction, however, Wikipedia does have a mentoring program called Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Based on your edit count you're probably not the typical editor for which this service is intended, however, it is the only avenue of which I'm aware for those seeking a program of instruction. You can also ask specific questions at WP:TEAHOUSE.

Happy editing! Chetsford (talk) 03:35, 25 June 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.

Oldest and wealthiest

Greetings Chetsford. Thanks for closing the RfC at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: oldest and wealthiest. There seems to be some confusion about the part of the sentence stating that Trump became the only president "without prior military or government service." That snippet was not under debate, because it has already been in the article for a long time, and there was no suggestion to remove it (compare current text to proposed text). I think you should amend your close accordingly. — JFG ^talk 22:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks JFG, it was poorly worded and I've clarified it. Sorry for the confusion. Chetsford (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Chetsford,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:College Buddies

The page Draft:College Buddies has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

see prior log entry

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

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or 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. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

331dot - I think you meant to leave this on Keothere's page. My only involvement with College Buddies was to reject it at AfC. Chetsford (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, the notice is automatic; it came here because you posted the decline of their draft after I had deleted the draft, so you were logged as the creator of the page. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, got it - sorry, my mistake! Chetsford (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

No big deal, it happens. Thanks for your efforts. 331dot (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 3 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Duplicate in Infobox military unit

Hi Chetsford. There are duplicate "aircraft_helicopter_transport" parms in the "Infobox military unit" you added here. I assume you cut-and-pasted from some source; it would be useful to remove the dup in the source, to prevent future problems :-) Davemck (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Zouave Cadets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

BLP

Thanks for the discussion close at Talk:Schoharie_limousine_crash#RfC:_Victims_names_list. Not really material in that case, but on a point of order your assertion in the close that "BLP does not apply here as all victims were fatalities and, therefore, not living persons. The deceased have no valid privacy concerns" is not automatically true. Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead, people who have died recently (and recently is undefined, but times of order 6 months, 1 year, 2 years are mentioned) are afforded the same level of discipline as a full BLP. The privacy concern in that instance pertains to the living relatives, rather than the deceased individual. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Amakuru. I'm aware of WP:BDP but didn't, and don't, believe it's applicable in this instance as the matter in question does not have "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends" which is the intent behind BDP. In closing discussions one has to balance comprehensiveness against readability and it is not always possible to address every possible manner in which any possible person might interpret the close. Nonetheless, I'm sorry you found the closure to be of inferior quality and I'd strongly encourage you to request a closure review. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Roosevelt dictatorship

On 13 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Roosevelt dictatorship, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some supporters of US president Franklin Roosevelt called for him to assume dictatorial powers in 1933? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Roosevelt dictatorship. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Roosevelt dictatorship), 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.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Trampas Whiteman AfD - missing nomination page

Howdy. You AfDed this - diff, but failed to create a nomination page (or perhaps Twinkle failed mid-operation?) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trampas Whiteman. Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, Icewhiz. I actually meant to abort that mid nom as I discovered a source that seemed to make an AfD unnecessary at the last moment. Sorry for the sloppy bookkeeping on my part. Chetsford (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries - aborting mid-Twinkle would seem to have possibly odd results - :-). Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)