User talk:Chumpih/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation: George Kent Ltd (November 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SL93 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
SL93 (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Chumpih! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SL93 (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions – such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks – on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"Barbarians (2021 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Barbarians (2021 film). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 12#Barbarians (2021 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so very much for the courtesy of this notification. I've replied - it's no biggie, so if this gets deleted it's all OK. Chumpih. (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

January 2021: Aberystwyth

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Aberystwyth, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here. The content is, of course, poor, but this information requires secondary sourcing. There is nothing "robust" about the link. You can discuss that all you like, but in the meantime we should not have improperly verified material in here. Your standard for inclusion seems to be "if it's mentioned it's OK", but that is impossible. Imagine applying that rule to Wales, and including every single mention of it. Please stop this silliness, and please see the Manual of Style on how to do section headings: see MOS:SECTIONS. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your contribution. I've reverted as per reasons stated in the history. To clear up "what [I'm] trying to achieve here": I'm not the first user who has come across this reference - see Talk:Aberystwyth for another user who would have benefited from the content that you're attempting to delete. Consequently, it's arguably a valid inclusion. You state "There is nothing 'robust' about the link", please can you explain why you think this is the case? Verification is easy, as per the original citation, and indeed the additional citation in the edit history. I totally agree WP:V is beyond dispute, and I thank you for previously stating that. Primary sources are acceptable according to WP:PRIMARY, and to elucidate: there's no interpretation going on here, just a factual transliteration. Thanks also for your comments re. MOS:SECTIONS - I'll consider these when relevant. But overall User:Drmies, may I be so bold as to suggest such deleterious, purgatory intents may be directed towards the words on "Meaning of Liff" and "A String in the Harp"? Chumpih (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
      • This is beyond stupid. I don't know if it's out of ignorance or obstinacy, but you keep on violating the MOS in these silly reverts, which are just POINTy. The MOS is always relevant. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Thanks again for your comments. Are there any specific areas for improvement you can suggest? Agree: WP:MOS is the authoritative and binding, and for sure I need to study more. Thanks again. Chumpih (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
          • The links for the MOS on section titles was given above. The first letter is a capital, the rest is not, unless there's a proper name. But I have started a talk page discussion on that material of yours. Goodbye. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
            • Most appreciated. Thank you.Chumpih (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Export control

I explained why I undid it. WP:BRD does not mean that you restore a contested edit, open a discussion somewhere else under a misleading header, and suggest that I need to follow BRD by participating.

I commented there. Your 3RR warning is completed inappropriate. I have not broken 3RR, it was not in a 24 hour period, I justified my edits, and I restored a contested edit ot the staus quo while it is under discussion. Meters (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion

Thank you for providing a third opinion on the discussion of Paradise, AZ. This is an obscure topic, so only two editors were involved; having your opion added was valuable. I will follow your advice and search for a supporting secondary source. 16:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You are totally welcome. I genuinely hoped the opinion was useful, but do please treat it in the spirit intended - it's just opinion and by no means binding. By the way, I had no idea such ghost towns were a thing, so I thank you for that. All the best! Chumpih. (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marc Canham (Musician) (April 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CommanderWaterford was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marc Canham (Musician) (April 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CommanderWaterford was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Marc Canham (composer) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Marc Canham (composer). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Reverted, I'm sorry to say. Chumpih. (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: George Kent Ltd has been accepted

George Kent Ltd, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Idiocracy, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. hulmem (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There's no synthesis or OR there, and it's in accordance with WP:Primary. But WP:BRD, so we can continue on Talk:Idiocracy Chumpih. (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS for album titles and song titles

Greetings, Chumpih. About this, the Wikipedia Manual of Style says to put album titles in italics and song titles in quotation marks. You can see that at MOS:TITLE. No biggie though. Edited to add: If you look at other articles about musicians, you'll see that this convention is generally followed. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Tweaked accordingly. Chumpih. (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Jewell

Hi Chumpih, per WP:INTDABLINK, intentional links to disambiguation should use the "(disambiguation)" link, even if that's a redirect. That is why I changed James Jewell to James Jewell (disambiguation). I haven't reverted your edit because I don't want to get into an edit war. Leschnei (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks Leschnei for the explanation here. I'll restore. Chumpih. (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Leschnei (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Village or not

If you are really worried, a former ambassador of USA to Turkmenistan—who won an award for mapping Turkmenistan and went on to serve as the chairperson of the OSM Foundation BoD—has noted the place to be a village (under Magtymguly etraby, Balkan welayaty) based on ground-level imagery and site visit in 2018. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Very nice. Chumpih. (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Tricky RfDs and relisting

Hi! Given that you participated in the page's recent RfD, I'm inviting you to comment in a proposal on its talk page: Talk:Communist holocaust#Ambiguous.

Incidentally, while compiling a list of editors to notify, I noticed that you had participated in the discussion with an explicit recommendation, and some time later you relisted it. That was evidently done in good faith, but it may be worth it to know that as a general rule of thumb, it's strongly advised that people don't take administrative actions on discussions in which they have already taken part (WP:INVOLVED). This includes relisting (you can have a look at Wikipedia:Relist bias for how the thinking goes). – Uanfala (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, a fair point, and thanks again. Chumpih t 08:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Checking for copyvio

Hi! I've just deleted International E-Waste Day, which you accepted from draft, because essentially every word of it was copied from its own or other websites. If you ran it through Earwig before accepting it you should have seen that – did you perhaps forget that crucial step? Anyway, please make sure that you do it as a matter of course before accepting any further drafts, and also – if you would kindly? – recheck all drafts you've already accepted in the same way. If you run into any problems I'm happy to help clean them up in one way or another (just ping me here). Thanks for your work at AfC, btw. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've done as you suggested, and all other pages I've accepted appear 'Unlikely' according to Earwig. Chumpih t 15:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, thank you, much appreciated. The trick with Earwig is to not pay too much attention to that overall evaluation, but instead look at what text is highlighted in red in the left panel – if it's just job titles, proper names of places or institutions, or titles of publications there can be a quite high "probability" but no cause for alarm; if it's running text, even a little, we should remove or rewrite it. I've made some changes to Elio Villafranca, partly for that reason. If you'll allow me to give another bit of completely unsolicited advice: if a page has been draftified by an experienced reviewer, it may be best to leave it for another such reviewer to evaluate. As I'm sure you know, properly-disclosed COI – and even paid – editing is tolerated in draft space (please don't ask me why!), but undisclosed paid editing is not allowed anywhere, ever; sadly, not every editor in draft space can be trusted to tell the truth either. Thanks for your good work, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
These insights are much appreciated. I didn't see much beyond coincidence with the matching phrases in Elio Villafranca, but for sure a reduction in risk is worthwhile. I'll also keep an eye out for WP:COI in future also. Thanks again. Chumpih t 21:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:NESAS

Information icon Hello, Chumpih. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:NESAS, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

New Indian Express

You describe this as an unreliable source at Draft:Vijay Varadharaj. It is not listed at WP:RSP. It is mentioned at WP:NPPSG but not as clearly unreliable. ~Kvng (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the comment at the time was "NIE doesn't appear to be a reliable source", and the request made was for better sources to support the notability of the subject. Chumpih t 05:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Charles Ernest Riddiford (Cartographer)

Information icon Hello, Chumpih. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Charles Ernest Riddiford (Cartographer), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Charles Ernest Riddiford (Cartographer)

Hello, Chumpih. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Charles Ernest Riddiford".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Marc Canham (Musician)

Information icon Hello, Chumpih. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Marc Canham (Musician), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Dates on Lapsus$

Hey. I'm confused why you've twice now reverted the date unification I've done. On 24 March the article was tagged with the maintenance template {{use dmy dates}}, which per the template documentation is designed to promote a consistent date format within the article. The only alternative template is {{use mdy dates}}, there is no "use ymd dates" or "use iso 8601 dates". This is in line with MOS:DATEFORMAT which quite clearly excludes general use of YMD dates in articles. Per MOS:DATEUNIFY any dates in citations should primarily be in the format used for publication dates in the article, which in this case is the DMY format, and that they should all be consistent, i.e. all access and archive dates should be in the same format. After your undo of the date unification, there are three distinct date formats in use in the citations, with some citations having different date formats for their access, publication, and archive dates.

You also said in your edit summary that The ISO 8601 date style for access dates is the accepted citation style for the article. Can you please point out where that consensus was determined? I've checked the article's talk page, where there has only ever been a single discussion which was not on the date format to use. The article was quite clearly tagged shortly after its creation with the {{use dmy dates}} template, which indicates that DMY dates are the accepted citation style for the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Of the 31 citations currently in the article:
  • 13 use exclusively DMY dates
  • 1 use exclusively MDY dates
  • 4 use exclusively ISO 8601 dates
  • 12 use DMY and ISO 8601 dates
  • 1 use MDY and ISO 8601 dates
Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I take your point. It would be reasonable to harmonise, and as you state, the tag is already in place for DMY. Re. 'accepted', 8601 was there for the original retrieval dates, and despite the tag, was not altered (until recently). So perhaps it's no longer accepted. If you wish to harmonise the dates, I'll not revert. Thanks for the message here, and apologies for my clumsy revisions. Chumpih t 04:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

~Swarm~ {sting} 19:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Most appreciated. Thanks ever so. Chumpih t 23:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Information icon Hello. Your recent edit to List of hacker groups appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. There is an explicit edit message in this article saying that all entries must have a Wikipedia article. WP:WTAF Meters (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, notability for Opera1er is likely. WP:WTAF is just an essay, q.v. WP:CSC. But you're right, there is a note on the page. Chumpih t 00:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:NESAS

Hello, Chumpih. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "NESAS".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles Ernest Riddiford (Cartographer) (December 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Clarityfiend was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Lacking in significant sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Chumpih! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles Ernest Riddiford (Cartographer) has been accepted

Charles Ernest Riddiford (Cartographer), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

JBW (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chumpih/Archive_1&oldid=1219559300"