User talk:Pikachelsea

Nomination of Chelsea Rustad for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chelsea Rustad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Chelsea Rustad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Pikachelsea. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. clpo13(talk) 03:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not being paid by anyone to make edits on Wikipedia. I was providing the requested information about the sources (48 Hours, CBS, CBC, People, etc) demonstrating why there is a public interest in the subject matter. Nemesis 03:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You have an even stronger conflict of interest than being paid by the article subject: you are the article subject. See Autobiographies. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me which opinions on the page you feel are not true and accurate, even though there are no opinions on the page, only cited objective facts? Nemesis 03:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with the concept of being too detailed? We're a general encyclopaedia. Being exhaustive comes across as promotional nine times out of ten. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 03:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The user SneaselxLv94 who proposed the article for deletion claimed there was insufficient evidence of public interest, despite multiple sources already being present in the article from different times over the past few years. So when the article was updated to include the most recent media source of 48 Hours, which is the reason there is a renewed interest in the subject matter, now you want to accuse me of "being too detailed" by answering the original question and providing additional and more current evidence? What is the exact number of sources that are considered permissible without being insufficient but also not being considered too detailed? Nemesis 04:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the sources, it's about what is presently in the article. And what is in the article is a whole bunch of extraneous details about one single event and a host of TV appearances based off of that one event, with no real indication she is known for anything beyond that. When it comes to articles, less is more, and when it comes to articles like this, we err towards the subject's privacy, especially if there is no indication they will be a public entity as a consequence. I also strongly suggest you knock it off with the ad hominems; they don't reflect well on you. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 04:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not extraneous details about one single event. It's a very brief, basic outline explaining the connection of the person in question to the Talbott case (in relation to the Wikipedia page about the murders of Jay Cook and Tanya Van Cuylenborg, which goes into much greater detail and also references the coverage of this case in the media), and why this particular case was noteworthy in the realm of criminal investigation and genetic genealogy. Also, I find it offensive that the user SneaselxLv94 can go on Wikipedia, openly accuse someone he has never met of being some kind of vain attention seeker "celebrity" who thinks they're on "social media" because they were featured in the media about a case involving double homicide and sexual assault, and when I say it's not appropriate to talk to people that way, I am the one accused of attacking others or calling them names. Do you have suggested edits to the page? Nemesis 04:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I noted at ANI, I don't think SneaselxLv94's comments were helpful or appropriate. But that notwithstanding, they're substantively correct that the article is thinly-sourced and the subject is not apparently an appropriate candidate for a Wikipedia biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

May I ask if you think the Chris_Furnis Wikipedia page is an appropriate candidate for a Wikipedia biography? There's a sparse handful of a few links which are game credits from the videogames they worked on at their job. I was told upon a deletion challenge that yes, that Chris_Furnis article clearly deserved to exist. I do not understand the actual standard by which a person is considered an appropriate candidate for a Wikipedia biography, and why multiple mainstream media appearances over several years in connection to a precedent setting historical event would not rise to that standard while this one example of many seemingly does.
 * No, you proposed its deletion and it was challenged. The next step after a proposed deletion is declined is to take it to a full debate. You were not explicitly told that the article "deserved to exist"; the person challenging it asked if it could possibly be improved. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 14:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I also do not understand the claim that the article is thinly sourced. I thought the claim earlier was that the article was overly detailed. I'm not understanding the problem with the content. Nemesis 04:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "thinly sourced" and "overly detailed" are not mutually exclusive propositions. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 14:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

My interpretation was that this response suggested it was self-evident that the article deserved to exist, and only could potentially be "improved" even more. I don't edit Wikipedia very often and was not aware this was an invitation to a debate. I have been struggling to figure out the proper channels by which to address the correct audience for support and clarification on this incident, and how to do things like sign my posts. The abrasive tone here is hurtful, feels like a personal attack, and is giving me anxiety to the point of physical nausea reading it.

I'm trying to request a better understanding and clarification of the standard for Wikipedia biographies. It seems to me the claim that Chelsea_Rustad article should be deleted over being a one time event is substantively wrong. The article exists not because of the "one time event" of the Talbott case, but because of the historical significance of being the first publicly identified genetic witness in history anywhere in the world, and furthermore being the genetic witness to the first case in history to go to trial and result in a conviction due to genetic genealogy. This is why the media has treated me as a person of interest, and while those media appearances in newspapers, magazines, TV, etc have boosted my visibility, those alone were not the primary reason why the article existed. I could elaborate further upon how I became an ambassador for the Institute of DNA Justice, how I was a featured speaker at the Midwestern Conference for Genetic Genealogy along with other keynote speakers who are prominent figures in the genealogy world, and the fact that I am also a true crime author, but I am genuinely not understanding the difference between clarifying the reasoning behind a person's notoriety/public interest in the domain of forensic investigation and genealogy, and "self-promotion" or exhaustive details.

If there is still an outstanding issue with the style, formatting, or content of the article, updates or corrections would be welcomed. I would like to ensure it is more in line with Wikipedia's standards and expectations. Nemesis 16:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * how to do things like sign my posts You do so by typing four (4) consecutive tildes (~) immediately following the final period (.) in your message.
 * I'm trying to request a better understanding and clarification of the standard for Wikipedia biographies I suggest that you click on WP:BLP and read the content therein. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow. I just now saw the notification on the delete page where everyone is attacking me personally, saying I'm the one attacking others by pointing out vandalism and untrue claims about my character by a troll, and suggesting genetic genealogy is "nothing new" when it literally only started in 2018 and this was the first case to ever use it successfully in the legal realm. I feel like I'm going to throw up and I'm sorry I ever asked for anyone's support or assistance here. You really seem intent on misunderstanding me and treating me like garbage. Nemesis 17:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You really seem intent on misunderstanding me and treating me like garbage. Because I responded positively to your efforts to learn how to sign your posts? Or because I directed you to WP:BLP, wherein pretty much all of your issues regarding, as you wrote, Wikipedia's standards and expectations can be successfully addressed? Yikes. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Not one thing you've said here was helpful to me. You all act like everyone here should be some Wikipedia expert, while attacking that person and using obnoxious abrasive tone against them for seeking the answers they don't have and better understanding from "experts". Turning off all email notifications so I do not experience further anxiety attacks from your disgusting, rude, personal insults.


 * your disgusting, rude, personal insults There's no reason to be coy. What do you really think about my efforts to help you sign your posts? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Signing your posts
Hello. Will you please learn to sign your posts? GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Your apparent refusal to sign your posts, is being disruptive. I foresee a block heading your way. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that is going a bit far? That said, it is extremely irritating to read someone's comments who does not sign them properly. jp×g 07:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Reminder not to make articles about oneself


The article Chelsea Rustad has been deleted. Please do not try to recreate this article in the future. The article will easily be deleted if you choose to do so as it will fall under the criteria for a speedy deletion. Based on your history on wikipedia, you will be monitored. Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service for you to advance your book sales and your celebrity status. Envyyyyyyyme (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)