User talk:Chetsford/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

DYK for Chicken Sandwich Wars

On 7 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chicken Sandwich Wars, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that war erupted in 2019 over a fried chicken sandwich? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chicken Sandwich Wars. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chicken Sandwich Wars), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I just enjoyed reading this – thanks for writing it. I'm curious to know what makes the Chicken Sandwich so popular as they look far too bland and stodgy for my taste -- no sauce, salad or significant seasoning. Even a Big Mac seems more exciting for the palate. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew! I'm as curious as you, to tell you the truth - ha! Chetsford (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Clywedog Reservoir 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 22:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur J. Hill

On 10 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Arthur J. Hill, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Arthur J. Hill, United States Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Housing, was one of four children of a single parent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur J. Hill. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Arthur J. Hill), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Chetsford a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Gracias, Captain! Chetsford (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Panjshir Conflict

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Panjshir Conflict. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Panjshir resistance. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Panjshir resistance. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Zoozaz1 talk 00:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.

Just wanted to take the time to thank you for the nice comment you left on the requests for autopatrolled page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Question about sourcing

I'm new to Wikipedia and I thought I'd take you up on your very kind offer to answer questions. There's a dead CJR link being used on a number of pages and I have to wonder, if CJR deleted that page, why it's still being used as a source. Thanks in advance for your help. --Spoonpassport (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Spoonpassport, and welcome to Wikipedia! Our policy on WP:RS does not preclude the use of sources that suffer WP:LINKROT; in fact, we explicitly permit WP:OFFLINE sources or those that were once online but have since gone offline. We outline methods to preserve the content of references in these cases (see H:AAS). If CJR retracted the article in question that would, of course, be a different matter. If you have a reference showing that CJR issued a retraction of the article, you should post it to the article Talk page and, I'm certain, editors will decide to remove the reference and any content the reference is supporting. However, the mere fact that a link is dead will probably not be considered by editors as evidence that an article was retracted. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any other questions. Chetsford (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Recent close

Hi Chetsford. Your close at the 'Government bio infoboxes, should they be decapitalized or not.' RfC stated: "By straight headcounting, 28 editors oppose capitalization in infoboxes, 14 support, and 3 expressed some alternate opinion."

There were actually 28 'A' !votes (A) Keep the titles capitalized in the infoboxes) and 14 'B' !votes (B) Decapitalize in the infoboxes), meaning 28 editors support (instead of oppose) capitalization in the infoboxes, and 14 oppose. Could the By straight headcounting,... sentence of your close be corrected please? It could be a simple change as adding two characters to the sentence: "By straight headcounting, 28 editors oppose decapitalization in infoboxes, 14 support, and 3 expressed some alternate opinion." Thanks. Some1 (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Some1 - thanks! Awful typo by me ... it's fixed now. Chetsford (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, "fixed" is relative. The latter paragraph (about whether JOBTITLES is controlling) was correct before, so now it is wrong. Sigh. Of course this doesn't affect the *logic* of the close, which is sound regardless. Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You get what you pay for ... okay that's fixed now, too ... Chetsford (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Chetsford. Thanks very much for stepping in and closing that RfC. I'm often amazed that anyone is willing to touch some of these things.

What I would like to clarify is whether you noticed (as your close does not make clear) that the whole issue was about titles preceded by an ordinal number. I agree that nobody argued against "President of Zimbabwe" as a title, but the gist of the question was what to do with "93rd president of Zimbabwe". I ask (respectfully) because in your close you make no mention of the ordination (is that the word?) and say, e.g., "I read that there is no consensus to keep the titles capitalized in the infoboxes ... the status quo (capitalized titles) should be observed", using generic, all-encompassing terms. I am not sure all of the participants caught that either, as many just said "they look dumb uncapitalized" without being clear they knew which titles/jobs they/we were talking about. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

JohnFromPinckney - thanks for your feedback. I did notice that, however, the closing note was already so long that there were some explanatories that I left out in an attempt to make it less confusing. Of course, it's a fine line as to whether omission of some information actually makes it less confusing or, in fact, increases the amount of confusion. Based on your comment, it may be a line I didn't finely tread. Chetsford (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chetsford. I disagree with your close. You were quite clear that the decapitalization arguments were sound and policy-based, while the capitalization arguments were not. If that is the case, we should be decapitalizing. You base your "no consensus" outcome on the current situation being capitalization. I disagree with that. There is no provision in the MoS for capitalization in infoboxes, in fact, it's clearly the opposite. The "keep" phrasing you rely on in the RfC question for that was written by the most ardently-pro capitalization user in the discussion. I took issue with the neutrality of that phrasing from the beginning, but there's not much one can do about that, since it was part of the RfC question. Are you telling me if I had been the one to open the RfC, and had phrased the question slightly differently, your close would've been different? If you insist on letting this close stand, I will WP:CLOSECHALLENGE it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Are you telling me if I had been the one to open the RfC, and had phrased the question slightly differently, your close would've been different?" That's impossible for me to say as it would require me to predict if the participating editors, in that hypothetical situation, would express objection to the fundamental character of the RfC in a way they largely failed to do in the actual RfC. "If you insist on letting this close stand, I will WP:CLOSECHALLENGE it." I completely understand and, as I noted, I anticipate a close review would be necessary. I fully support you, or anyone, bringing it up and am happy to have the close scrutinized. It's well within the realm of possibility that I read the consensus incorrectly. Chetsford (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Chetsford, I am grateful to you for closing the discussion. I am generally grateful to all experienced editors who dive into the fire of non-admin closures. My concerns about the final call you made don't affect that gratitude in the slightest; in fact, I greatly appreciate how willing you have been to engage in good-faith post-close discussion and to guide it to the appropriate locations. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't take your comments that way at all, and thank you, Firefangledfeathers! Chetsford (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for graciously not pointing out my 'non-admin' error. I don't think I've bumped into you in an admin capacity, but I certainly could have checked. My bad! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

LOL, I just thought you were giving me a hint! j/k Chetsford (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MoS RfC closure challenge: job title capitalization in infoboxes. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

My apologies.

As the editor who opened the RFC-in-question, for which you're now being hanged drawn and quartered over. My apologies for any attacks made against you by the pro-lowercase editors. Some folks just can't take NO, for an answer. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

HA! There's no need to apologize and I don't feel as if I'm either being hanged, or drawn and quartered! Like I said, I think this was a close call and I'm all for reviews of anything and everything; it will either overturn a bad close or restore the confidence of the disaffected side that their concerns were at least given an outlet. Chetsford (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It'll be a heck of a fight, if the pro-lowercase editors try to force their changes across Wikipedia. The Americans & Australians will immediately reject such changes, right off the bat & I doubt WP:ANI or Arbcom would ever block/ban a large number of editors for it. Me thinks Tart may have bitten off more then he can chew. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The fact that your closure is being challenged & that there's disagreement over whether your ruling was correct? Shows further proof, that you are correct about there being no consensus. GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Those who are trying to overturn your close, weren't (IMHO) going to accept any decision that went against their position. Indeed, one of the objecting editors seems to be developing a habit of challenging any RFC or MoD decision, that doesn't go his/her way. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It's okay. If we didn't want closes challenged, we wouldn't have a process to do so. Chetsford (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, how is it a "habit" when it's the first and only close I've ever challenged? Or are you referring to someone else? Also, what's an "MoD"? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Can't fully recall. I believe I got your's & another editor's edit mixed together, as they were so close. GoodDay (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, don't go around accusing people of things if you "can't recall" whether they're true. Because what you've said here is not true. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Very well. GoodDay (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Though the Americans (and possibly Canadians, New Zealanders & Australians) might object. Perhaps deleting the ordinals from the infoboxes, would end this uppercase/lowercase dispute. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise, it would look rather silly, seeing 46th president of the United States in Joe Biden's infobox, while having Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in Boris Johnson's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40