User talk:Chetsford/Archive 17

John Sargent Pillsbury Sr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Sargent_Pillsbury_Sr.

The reason I do not contribute more is I don't understand the tools and I don't understand how you literally have hundreds of thousands if not millions of entries where there are no citations and maybe a line or two that were accepted but here I spent days trying to research online and ran into numerous issues not because I didn't do the research, but because three men have the exact same name all jammed together within the same time period and working for the same company.

The entire reason I spent a few days looking into this was I started a fictional football league and wanted some info on him as a fictional owner. I did find important information about him which I provided numerous references to.

This citation alone contains more information than most Wikipedia topics provide https://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=rlc328&id=I20695 and if it gets posted I can then contact local librarians in Minneapolis and Pillsbury then to add additional information by editing the Wiki entry. I'm sure they could add a lot more to the entry than I could ever do but having a base to work with would go a long way towards convincing them to help.

While I understand I am a novice, and I'll tell you right now I hate using your tools, I put more effort into this than most and I don't accept your reasoning for the rejection. First I added too many citations to Wikipedia. Ok, that I understood and corrected as I accepted that was wrong as I was compiling citations rather than the information as the information I got from different sites but I thought it was ok to use Wiki to cite additional information to link people to. But with all the Wikipedia pages I've been to where there was little or no effort put in at all, I actually am rather insulted by the reason to reject this entry.

There is a genuine need for this article because Governor John Sargent Pillsbury, John Sargent Pillsbury SR and John Sargent Pillsbury JR all have the identical same name and they overlap both in their lifetime on the planet and in the family company so that they get confused and it may be that confusion which results in John Sargent Sr being ignored. Rather than run from him to avoid confusion, would it not be best to create an entry and address the confusion to say here is the answer to the confusion as here we can definitively tell you John Sargent Pillsbury SR didthis this and this but if you have further information you can contribute, please do.

I am not angry because the article was rejected as lord knows I'm not good at working with your tools. But to say there's not enough information to make it worth sharing is insulting when I see so many other Wiki entries that have almost no effort put into them or actually are not needed. But this one I feel is needed to clarify an issue with historic necessity to it.

Just get it up and I'll start contacting everyone I can to contribute to improving it... I will even contact some of the people I used for citations. But I need help in being able to provide them with something they can see as they can't see drafts to help me and maybe I can even find someone who can use the Wiki tools to better improve the article.

Not asking for rules to be broken, just asking for help or I'll just say to heck with this as I added more than enough to justify approving the article so others can contribute and help resolve this issue as John Sargent Pillsbury SR accomplished many things in his life it seems and all it takes is for someone to create a place where it can be added.

My understanding of Wikipedia isn't that it just copies and emulates what other sites already posted... my understanding is that Wikipedia is the first to post important information for others to copy, link to and emulate. I'm just asking for a start as this got my interest but otherwise, it has nothing to do with me or anything I really care about. And isn't that why it's important for people like me to show we care enough to try being involved?

Up to you Chetsford as if you feel it isn't deserving, I'll drop it. But if this isn't deserving, then you need to get to work removing a lot of entries others approved because my submission did include research, citations and information that it appears no one else considered because they just needed someone to take the lead.

Armorbeast (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Armorbeast - Up to you Chetsford as if you feel it isn't deserving, I'll drop it. - it isn't a question of whether it's deserving or not, it's a question as to whether or not it meets WP's sourcing standards. You can view them here WP:RS. At the time I reviewed it you had 12 sources. Eight were to Wikipedia itself or WP mirror sites, which are not RS. Two were to a genealogy website which is sometimes okay for establishing facts from primary documents but doesn't contribute to Notability. The other two sources were fine but each contained only a one sentence mention. I'd suspect this individual probably meets the criteria for a WP article, however, the AFC process is not a research or copyediting service. The terms of AFC require AFC reviewers to only approve or reject what is presented. But to say there's not enough information to make it worth sharing is insulting when I see so many other Wiki entries that have almost no effort put into them or actually are not needed. But this one I feel is needed to clarify an issue with historic necessity to it. I apologize profusely that you felt insulted, however, Wikipedia is aware it has problem articles and the culling of these is an ongoing process. Let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to try to answer them. I also hope you take a moment to express your concerns at the WP:TEAHOUSE where you might receive more holistic advise. Best - Chetsford (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, first let me apologize if I sounded a bit rough. it's a bit frustrating finding your way around Wiki to add things and it seems everyone has to post links to go here or there because it takes forever to find your way around if they don't. I found the Chat by accident doing that and spoke with a user name +Dragonfly6-7 who gave me some pointers and assured me it looked good but needed more things like metadata. Not well versed in things like that so I may have to find someone else to do that for the article if I get it posted. I also question if it were reviewed and rejected a second time as I removed all but one of the Wiki links and Dragonfly pointed the lone one out to me. I do know not to use wikilinks for reference but it was late and already had it written when I decided to add more references and it slipped my mind. From what I see in your response, it looks like you only reviewed it once (maybe lol). If you did not review and reject it a second time, I apologise for the assumption. If you did, I was made aware it needs improving and have made a few improvements to it already and while try to add a few more. Sometimes though, genealogy sites are about all we have to go on and I have seen Wiki allow them as the sole point of reference so I thought this was a good information source.
 * The trick here I think is that JS Pillsbury sr was notable but the identical name creates problems. After all, how many families do you know of where three people within a generation in the same family doing basically the same job have the same first middle and last name. it's going to create confusion and maybe people just feel they need to cut the middle guy out and only write about the older and younger members to reduce confusion.
 * I do appreciate what you guys do here but I'm not much for adding articles on Wiki as the tools and code to me look like extraterrestrial text from Area 51 lol. So while I have the time and am always researching information, at most you'll only see a few additions from me and even then I prefer letting the original authors of a submitted article edit their own topic as too many people meddle and mess with Wiki as it is trying to purposely mess up the articles. That's why so many refuse to accept Wiki as a source for information now and I think there needs to be a better way to go about adding new information to keep these tricksters from playing with the articles. So I try to let others decide if something should be added unless I have good reason to believe it will be approved and people won't mind.
 * It's kinda funny that people with no ill intent can't figure this site out to add and help out while jokesters figure it out easily enough to try destroying your articles integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armorbeast (talk • contribs) 23:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Chetsford (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Going to try making some corrections to my poor grammar and then get on getting others to improve this. Thanks Chetsford. Feel oddly accomplished with this first one under my belt and if or when I try again, I'll try to do a better job and gets help in chat if future submissions aren't approved. Glad this site has people like you on board as you were patient with my frustration and I know you're just trying to make this site better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armorbeast (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! Chetsford (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Glad you're back! Chetsford (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Trump close review
Greetings Chetsford. As you recently closed an RfC about Donald Trump, perhaps you'd like to take a look at this request for a close review about another RfC for the same article. — JFG talk 10:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG - thank you for the invitation! That said, because this is a controversial subject area and I just implemented a non-admin close of an RfC in it - coupled with the unique circumstances regarding the origin of this specific RfC - I don't think it would be advisable for me to be the one to attempt to close it. I apologize I'm not of better help. Chetsford (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. I didn't expect you to close it, just a heads-up to the ongoing discussion in case you have something to say. — JFG talk 10:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it, sorry - I misunderstood. At this time I have to enthusiastically decline! Chetsford (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Resubmit Joseph Zinker
Hi Chetsford! I tried to use your recommendations and to change my draft:Joseph Zinker. I think Zinker meets the criterias of ANYBIO (criterion 2), of NAUTHOR (criterion 2 and may be also 1) and could also have an article in Wikipedia as an academic (Notability academics criterions). It's also the author of a book that has been judged one of the "Books of the year" by the magazine "Psychology Today" in 1977 and which is now a classic and a best-seller translated into several languages. I tried to add a lot of sources to demonstrate it. I'm waiting for your opinion. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelphineM. (talk • contribs) 17:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Herman Vandenburg Ames
I've just promoted this article. I added it to the "education" section of the FA page, but perhaps you can think of a better place to put it! You can either ping me, or move it yourself if you think it could be better placed. Sarastro (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sarastro! I think the education section is perfect! Chetsford (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dwight Agnew
Hello! Your submission of Dwight Agnew 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! Edwardx (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Aspen Academy
Hi. Do remember to  check  back  on  he outcomes of any  articles your  have sent  to  AfD. This may be of help  for  you  with  your  patrolling. Any questions, don't  hesitate  to  ask  at  WT:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Kudpung, I always make it a point of doing so. Chetsford (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States elections, 2018
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States elections, 2018. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Untitled Thread
Dear Chetsford - thank you for your review of my article on James Bielo; I appreciate your input and thank you for your suggestion. Are University run pages considered ‘independent’ sources for academics? Also, are book reviews of a figure considered independent sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonBialecki (talk • contribs)
 * Hi JonBialecki - in general, yes, university-run pages and book reviews are considered independent sources. You may want to review WP:NACADEMIC as well, however. Chetsford (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Chetsford thanks for the suggestion and the reply; they are both appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonBialecki (talk • contribs) 23:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Moravec
G'day Chetsford, are you sure you want to withdraw Emanuel Moravec? It has two supports already and really only needs one more and perhaps an image tweak for promotion. It would be a shame to give up on all the work you've put into it, along with the reviewers. I've got a full dance card this week with reviews, but could probably look at it over the weekend. Let me know? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker67 - sorry for my delayed reply. Since it's taken six months to get two supports I thought it might be kind-of occupying space to just leave it there which is part of the reason I thought it would be good to withdraw it and submit it to FAC. I don't think it's a loss as it's been improved greatly just by going through the A process. That said, I'll defer to your judgment if you'd prefer I keep it alive. I did just open a FA nomination after I posted my message on the coordinator board so (I think) I'd need to close that, however? Chetsford (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry it has taken so long to get reviewed. How about I review it over the weekend and we see how things are progressing then? All you have to do with the FAC nom is take it off the queue until the ACR passes, then re-instate it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No reason to apologize! How about I review it over the weekend and we see how things are progressing then? That's fine but don't feel like you need to do it pronto, I'm not in a hurry or anything; the only reason I asked to withdraw it is so it wouldn't clog up the system but if you are of the opinion it's not then I won't worry about it. Anyway, will withdraw from FAC now. Chetsford (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I managed to get it done today as I had some free time, so I suggest you take a look at it and let Ian Rose know you want to withdraw the FAC nom. There's only a two week hiatus before a re-nom at FAC anyway. By the time the Milhist ACR has wrapped up, you'll be good to go there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi guys, I just came here because I'd decided to detonate the FAC nom to permit the ACR to continue and a new FAC to be nominated as soon as that happens, and to let Chetsford know that I have a copy of his nom statement for re-use if you don't get to it before the current FAC page is deleted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ian Rose and Peacemaker67 - thanks so much for your assistance and I apologize for unintentionally screwing things up; I thought I'd removed the FAC but it appears I only removed it from the nominee list and not the actual nomination. I appreciate your work in cleaning up after my path of destruction. Chetsford (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Good article: Antarctic Treaty issue
The article Antarctic Treaty issue you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Antarctic Treaty issue for comments about the article. Congratulations! Kingsif (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Kingsif - thanks very much for the thorough review. Please let me know if you have anything queued for which I can return the favor. Chetsford (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - you're welcome, it's a neat article! I do have a page nominated, but it's longer than this. Kingsif (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Kingsif - I'll be happy to review it. I'm going to be off WP for most of this week but can definitely get to it no later than next Monday. Chetsford (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * that would be great if you did it (it is Aula Magna (Central University of Venezuela))! I'll be away for a bit this month, so there's no rush at all. Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Schindlerjuden
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Schindlerjuden. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Request on 09:16:02, 11 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Dannylenihan
Dannylenihan (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Chetsford - I have re-edited the document and re-submitted. I'm still very new to wikipedia, so it's all quite confusing at the moment. Please let me know if there's anything more I need to publish the article.

Thanks,

D

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

DYK for National Philatelic Collection (United States)
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.


 * Project news
 * The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
 * As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.


 * There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See New pages patrol/Coordination for more info to see if you can help out.


 * Other
 * A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.


 * Moving to Draft and Page Mover
 * Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
 * If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
 * Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
 * The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
 * The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)