User talk:Chetsford

Archives

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

Chetsford is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia on July 22, with possible occasional check-ins.

2020 NCAA Division I Baseball season

What No Article. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Defender's Quest rejected

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, mind telling me your reasoning behind rejecting Draft:Defender's Quest as an article? You stated it has "Insufficient RS to demonstrate GNG" despite it having 4 RS cited in the article itself and even more as potential references._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Metacritic is a review aggregator; the Gamasutra article is written by an officer of Level Up Labs and is, therefore, not WP:INDEPENDENT; and "destructoid.com" demonstrates no evidence of being a RS (it is not, itself, sourced by unambiguously RS). That leaves two routine reviews in something called RPGamer which, without delving into whether or not that is an RS, is simply not WP:SIGCOV. If there are additional sources you didn't include, you'll need to include them. The reviewing standards of AfC specifically disallow reviewers from conducting a WP:BEFORE; all responsibility is left to the person making the submission (i.e. you). Chetsford (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:VG/S, Destructoid is indeed a trusted source if the content is an official review. (See WP:VG/S#Situational sources). RPGamer is also a trusted source (See WP:VG/S#Genre-specific) and counts as significant coverage, not to mention the SIGCOV in the number of other reviews linked from Metacritic. It seems like you are the one who hasn't conducted any research, at the very least you haven't gone over what is and isn't a reliable source before jumping into reviewing videogame articles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the Gamasutra article is not self promotion, but a WP:PRIMARY source. It doesn't appear motivated solely to sell more copies of the game or as advertising. Obviously primary sources cannot demonstrate notability on their own but they are allowed to exist in articles if there are other RS that do._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZXCVBNM I think your understanding of the consensus on Destructoid is not in sync with my reading. The motivation of a non INDEPENDENT article is irrelevant; it is fine to use but almost never contributes to N. Metacritic, as said, is a review aggregator. That leaves RPGamer which does not by itself constitute significant coverage and would not by itself even if it were the New York Times. Feel free to resubmit the article for a second opinion. There's nothing more I can do for you. Best of luck.Chetsford (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request on 16:34:36, 17 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by LewisOner

LewisOner (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Lewis Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, thank you for reviewing the page. You say Reliable sources but I tried to add the chemical counpounds, the traces they left, the process in pictures but not a single image is accepted by Wikipedia. Here's the message I get every time: We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. Please help!

LewisOner (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LewisOner. It doesn't really matter what pictures you add as raw images are not WP:RS since interpreting imagery is WP:OR. Currently your article is sourced to Wikipedia which is not, itself, a reliable source, and a DOT.gov website which is fine as a WP:PRIMARY source but additional sources are needed to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Further, the name of your proposed article is "Lewis Bell" which suggests it is a biography, so it's unclear if you've combined two articles by accident, misnamed this article, or if Mr Bell is - miraculously - a human elastomeric protective barrier. Chetsford (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:01:12, 17 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by LewisOner

LewisOner (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Lewis Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ok thanks a lot for the reply! I will work on it. And yes, ahaha, you're right. I did not find how to edit the page's title, it should be HRCSA. Still looking at where to edit this. Have an idea? Thank you so much for your time and effort.

LewisOner (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LewisOner - I've moved the page for you. Chetsford (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would appreciate if you could refrain from forum shopping, as you did most recently here and have repeatedly done in the past. Combined with your selective (mis-)characterization of issues when you do find a new forum, and your refusal to ping participants impartially, it suggests a pattern of behaviour that is ultimately POV-pushing and/or unCIVIL. It would be great if we could nip this in the bud, before it pushes us back to ANI. Thanks! Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I've done something to upset you, but seeking feedback for purposes of clarification of a point in the forum dedicated to discussion of that very point is not forum shopping, per the Multiple Issue Carve Out: "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question." It is not unusual for a discussion about RS in the Talk page of an article to prompt a properly linked and related inquiry at the RS noticeboard, nor is it unusual for a discussion about an interpretation of a specific WP:NCORP criteria to prompt a properly linked and related inquiry at its respective talk page. To the separate issue of me "mischaracteriz"ing you, I am unaware of any instances where I have done that. Therefore, I would encourage you to raise that issue at ANI as I don't believe it is within my power to provide what it is you seek. I regret I am unable to offer you a response that you are likely to find satisfactory and hope you will accept, in advance, my apology in that regard. Chetsford (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Forum shopping 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your header and description of the "game manufacturer" issue, and your description of the Dream Pod 9 issue at DRV, are both plainly mischaracterized. The sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted in the previous Forum shopping section states, "Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." You might want to try that since, for example, "provided they manufacture science fiction games" was not something I or anyone else had suggested as a criterion for the NORG exclusion, and the "corporate article on a vacuum cleaner company" comparison wasn't intended to launch the DRV in a neutral manner, either.

Also note that I am not engaging emotionally about this topic and will not be doing so, either, at ANI. I would encourage you to do the same, and stick to facts rather than feelings. Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Your header and description of the "game manufacturer" issue, and your description of the Dream Pod 9 issue at DRV, are both plainly mischaracterized." I disagree, but I am sorry you feel that way.

"note that I am not engaging emotionally about this topic" Noted.

Chetsford (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]