User talk:Chetsford
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44 |
|
Messages from bots may not be preserved in the archives. |
Thank you
[edit]For protecting the Randy Fine change. Can you please consider whether the edit prior to your protection was proper? A deletion asserting POV and disruption (I think a glance will show it was not a proper deletion). This - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Fine&diff=prev&oldid=1283299796
As you can see, a significant percentage of this editor's edits, across a number of articles, have been reverted by various editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.29.203.143
Thank you. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:398F:2FAB:E604:F63D (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, this had nothing to do with any specific edits, it was more the case that we were experiencing a disruptive back-and-forth of edits and reverts from IP editors over the last several days that were broadly symptomatic of edit warring. Pending changes protection is the lowest level of protection and will slow the cadence of superfluous changes to the article a bit by requiring those originating from IP addresses be reviewed by the patrol before they become visible.
I don't have the authority to decide if any specific edit is "proper" or not; whether a specific edit is consistent with our policies and guidelines is a determination that must be made by the community on the article's Talk page. That said, if a specific editor has engaged in blatant WP:VANDALISM or unambiguous violation of our WP:BLP policy, they should be reported to the appropriate noticeboard (e.g. WP:AIV) with diffs to the specific edits in question.
In any case, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Please also consider WP:REGISTERing an account and completing the WP:ADVENTURE. Chetsford (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)- Thank you for our advice. The editor appears (to me at least) to be happy to delete properly supported material, and claim untruthfully POV or disruption. And then warn me that I cannot revert them in turn (and of course I do not want to edit war), but (as you point out) must go to the talk page. And as nobody seems to be looking at the talk page - and weighing in - their groundless mass deletion stays. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:398F:2FAB:E604:F63D (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I'm not following. The last significant deletion at the article in question was done by you [1]. Maybe I'm missing something. Chetsford (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I am referring to this revert, which includes deletions (but is a net add). It restored among other things an opinion piece that had been deleted as it is not an RS. And sentence that had been deleted, as reflected in the deletion edit summaries, because it was not supported by the indicated ref, or had no ref at all. And deleted explanatory RS-supported language. Nothing deleted was POV. Nor were the additions supported by the edit summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Fine&diff=prev&oldid=1283299796
- Okay, well, I'm not really sure what I can do. While some of the content removal is, in my opinion, questionable, there's no blatant vandalism as such. For instance, one of the deletions was content cited to Raw Story, which we've already determined is generally unreliable (see WP:RAWSTORY) and shouldn't be used in biographies.
I suggest you raise any specific issues on the Talk page and invite the other editor to discuss it there. If they don't or you find you're not able to come to some agreement, you can request additional input by posting a message to WP:BLPN. However, beyond that, my hands are tied when it comes to two editors who are simply editing and reverting each other with no attempt to actually communicate outside of edit summaries. I do understand that the process I'm describing is slow and not immediately satisfying, but that's just how this all works. In the meantime, any cases of WP:3RR can be reported to WP:AN/3. Chetsford (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)- Thanks. I actually have tried to communicate outside of edit summaries. Both on the editor's talk page. And on the article's talk page. The editor's view is that my hands are tied if nobody comments on the article talk page. And what you and I view as questionable reverts stands. (thanks for the head's up about Raw Story - agreed; though not the basis it would seem for the deletion by the editor, it should go). 184.153.21.19 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, it's very difficult for me to track who is controlling whichever IP address I'm talking to at any one point in time. In any case, by "communicating" I meant more of an open discussion beyond simply slapping template warnings on their Talk page [2]. But, regardless, there's not much I can do about a content dispute between two editors. If 3RR has occurred, it should be reported to WP:AN/3. If there are unambiguous cases of vandalism, it should be reported to WP:AIV. If you would like input from additional editors to help achieve a lasting consensus for certain content on the page, you can post a notice to WP:BLPN. If all of the previous fail, you can also find other tips at WP:DISPUTE. But I'm powerless to "enforce" the continuity of certain content, except in cases where there's a clear consensus from the community for the continuity of said content that is being maliciously overridden. That doesn't seem to be the case here (at this time).
That said, if it's any consolation, I would assume based on their edit history (but have no way to prove) the other editor may largely be motivated by their support for the Fine election campaign and will lose interest in the article tomorrow. Chetsford (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)- Thanks again. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, it's very difficult for me to track who is controlling whichever IP address I'm talking to at any one point in time. In any case, by "communicating" I meant more of an open discussion beyond simply slapping template warnings on their Talk page [2]. But, regardless, there's not much I can do about a content dispute between two editors. If 3RR has occurred, it should be reported to WP:AN/3. If there are unambiguous cases of vandalism, it should be reported to WP:AIV. If you would like input from additional editors to help achieve a lasting consensus for certain content on the page, you can post a notice to WP:BLPN. If all of the previous fail, you can also find other tips at WP:DISPUTE. But I'm powerless to "enforce" the continuity of certain content, except in cases where there's a clear consensus from the community for the continuity of said content that is being maliciously overridden. That doesn't seem to be the case here (at this time).
- Thanks. I actually have tried to communicate outside of edit summaries. Both on the editor's talk page. And on the article's talk page. The editor's view is that my hands are tied if nobody comments on the article talk page. And what you and I view as questionable reverts stands. (thanks for the head's up about Raw Story - agreed; though not the basis it would seem for the deletion by the editor, it should go). 184.153.21.19 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, well, I'm not really sure what I can do. While some of the content removal is, in my opinion, questionable, there's no blatant vandalism as such. For instance, one of the deletions was content cited to Raw Story, which we've already determined is generally unreliable (see WP:RAWSTORY) and shouldn't be used in biographies.
- I'm sorry. I am referring to this revert, which includes deletions (but is a net add). It restored among other things an opinion piece that had been deleted as it is not an RS. And sentence that had been deleted, as reflected in the deletion edit summaries, because it was not supported by the indicated ref, or had no ref at all. And deleted explanatory RS-supported language. Nothing deleted was POV. Nor were the additions supported by the edit summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Fine&diff=prev&oldid=1283299796
- I'm sorry, I'm not following. The last significant deletion at the article in question was done by you [1]. Maybe I'm missing something. Chetsford (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for our advice. The editor appears (to me at least) to be happy to delete properly supported material, and claim untruthfully POV or disruption. And then warn me that I cannot revert them in turn (and of course I do not want to edit war), but (as you point out) must go to the talk page. And as nobody seems to be looking at the talk page - and weighing in - their groundless mass deletion stays. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:398F:2FAB:E604:F63D (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
DYK for America is Back
[edit]
On 1 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article America is Back, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that America keeps coming back? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/America is Back. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, America is Back), 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.
SL93 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
RfC: Should US Government Maps be used in the Geography and similar articles
[edit]Thank you for your close of this RfC. I started a draft that became this RfC to help mitigate a dispute between some editors. My hope was that a consensus would emerge that could guide the map selection for the subject page. Because the responses were so varied, I think your close was appropriate. I think my optimism resulted in quite a heavy lift for your close analysis so I just want to say an extra word of thanks for handling the close so diligently. Dw31415 (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- No worries at all! I think it was an important RfC to have, even if it didn't produce a clear resolution of the underlying matter. Chetsford (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)