User talk:Chetsford

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

What Agenda Do You Have Against The UFO Topic

[edit]

Are you a fed? If so, you're running illegal misinformation against US Citizens. If not,

The Twining Memo from 1947 is clear evidence there is some kind of surveillance by a continuous presence we don't know about, or are covering up. With the recent Congressional hearings that are ONGOING, these topics are no longer outside the Overton window. Your belittling and 1984-adjacent ERASURE of an elder statesman from the public record just weeks after his passing is DISGUSTING and against the transparency and objective truth due to Wikipedia. 2600:1700:A9B:C810:D0F3:2902:140A:F441 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"you're running illegal misinformation against US Citizens" Oh no! Chetsford (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rethink life 2600:6C44:6900:299:8061:E1D:E55E:DC47 (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you're running illegal misinformation against US Citizens, IP, I would strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with WP:LEGAL, which your comment seems to violate. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, I agree you seem to have an axe to grind with the UAP community. You seem to be editing from a place of personal bias and the community seems to disagree with your proposed deletions. I don't think you're a fed, but I do think you have a chip on your shoulder. Maybe find some other community to troll for a while? N1ywb (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, N1ywb. Trolling is a violation of our WP:DE. I encourage you to report any such instances you observe to WP:ANI. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford Please allow me to rephrase my comments. I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia; you are an important member of the team and I'm particularly impressed by your legal tenacity. But I'm afraid that in this case you have created at least the appearance of bias by proposing deletion of a number of pages that do seem to meet notability standards. Regardless of how this came to be, I would respectfully suggest taking a break from UAP pages to demonstrate neutrality and allow the situation to cool off. N1ywb (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
N1ywb - you're gravely mistaken about what NPOV is and is not. Our article on unicorns says they never existed. NPOV doesn't require us to come to a compromise with unicorn believers and put in the article "unicorns once roamed the Earth but are today extinct".
If you haven't had a chance to complete the WP:ADVENTURE yet, I highly recommend it. It's a great tool to help introduce and explain our policies and guidelines which, admittedly, can often by labyrinthine and opaque. Chetsford (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brony

[edit]

Brony calls the man who stood up to up Curtis LeMay and prevented a nuclear disaster a minor personality writes about army horses.....

You can't be a serious person looking to delete the history of Malmgren just after his death while putting horses on a pedestal.

You're sick in the head. 2600:1702:4FDB:B800:2431:157C:B991:5FA5 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note and acknowledge your concerns. Chetsford (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC); edited 20:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chronically online and of little notability. *Yawn* 99.168.96.135 (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, half of that is true. Chetsford (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writes an article about an army horse, decides Harald Malmgren not deserving a wiki

[edit]

What’s up with that 2600:6C44:6900:299:8061:E1D:E55E:DC47 (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How DARE you. Beechwold Chester's uncontrollable breeding contributed thousands of cavalry chargers to the U.S. Army. Chetsford (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's wishing IP a time machine to meet the subject, and a fallen hanky to bend over for. JFHJr (㊟) 05:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JFHJr: what do you mean by that? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the olden days, the drop of a handkerchief was a dignified sign of interest. JFHJr (㊟) 02:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Surreal Barnstar
I’m awarding you the Surreal Barnstar in recognition of your dedicated efforts in tackling difficult and controversial topics. Your commitment to maintaining balance and thoroughness, even when faced with heavy scrutiny, shows a unique resilience and adds valuable depth to discussions. (Awarded after a flurry of emails to VRT about specific AfDs). Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Awarded for defending the spirit of Wikipedia, and its policies/guidelines, against corrosive canvasing campaigns, even to the point of threats of lawsuits (not for the first time either it seems). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

[edit]
May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're apparently socks...

[edit]

...Let's get cracking! How else can we deprive the world of *true* and *censored* information?? I particularly like how we (I?) !voted differently on Harald's AfD to confuse them even more. lol. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our superiors at Ashtar Galactic Command will be very pleased with our work. Chetsford (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very pleased indeed! Eddie891 Talk Work 16:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a somewhat unrelated note, I’m probably going to stop by the library tomorrow and check out what a book I linked as possibly having significant coverage in Harald’s afd actually says about him-if you want to double check what I’m adding, I’d be happy to scan the relevant pages and email them to you. Let me know! Or of course, I could always upload them to the central computers at galactic command… Eddie891 Talk Work 16:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed I didn't get any "special treatment" like you two. I seem to have been caught up in all this, dishing out a few blocks, but I didn't see anyone heaping abuse on my head. Or maybe I've not been looking in the right place. I did find this nice fanclub piece though ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give up hope yet! Chetsford (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aw man, I don't have anything anywhere near as fun as that yet, Ritchie! Eddie891 Talk Work 19:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up?

[edit]

Hey, I don't think we've interacted before but I figured you might want to know about this. [1] Some night talk show made a twitter post upset about an edit of something to do with Ufos or something. Just saw it getting a bunch of attention and Jimbo was commenting, so I figured you might want to be aware of it if you weren't already. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 21:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias, Sophisticatedevening! I don't think I'd seen that one. I think these are the ones who are trying to sue me (or are suing me?). I'm not sure. They were talking about crowdfunding a lawsuit for something something something and then I think there was a UFO Lawyer (who knew that was a thing?) who posted "get your affairs in order" on X, apparently directed at me. (Maybe he's putting out a hit on me, though? I guess one could read that either way! LOL.)
In any case, the last guy who sued me over Wikipedia is now safely tucked away at Federal Correctional Institution, Oakdale. Chetsford (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, it's good to see that the more batshit Twitter mob is being kept at bay, I for one found it somewhat humorous to see how.. unique (insane?) some of the commentors' suggestions are. Take care, Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 00:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Branstar

[edit]
The Civility Barnstar
Good job dealing with the canvassed IPs in a relatively civil manner! I hope nothing bad happens to you from this.

unlike what happened to someone else. I miss Di 

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Psychological perspectives on UFO belief for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Psychological perspectives on UFO belief, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychological perspectives on UFO belief until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect they gonna break out the big guns next..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO. I was thinking of tuning in tomorrow [2] to find out how much $$$ I'm supposedly on the hook for this time. I figured making a guest appearance is the least I can do after all the work they put into this. (Unfortunately, Pacific Time in the USA is a little early for me and I'll probably just sleep in.) Chetsford (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On tonight's EXPLOSIVE episode of Stupid Old White Guys, see Actual Attorneys (tm) from Planet X sue Wikipedia editors for...one million dollars! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Wow, Matt Ford clearly has no idea what he's talking about haha - Eddie891 Talk Work 15:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Favorite quotes from the episode, “they are almost certainly guilty of recklessly disregarding truth”, and talking about “group chat talk pages” and proceeding to show a screenshot of an AfD. But the craziest bit is they got an actual lawyer to talk about defamation charges, and apparently are paying “group of researchers” to look into the “guerilla skeptics” Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 15:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the researcher who put "tens of thousands of hours" in and tracked down "buried talk pages"... I hope nobody is paying him for those difficult efforts. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Wikipedia’s internal communications”.. so a talk page? Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 15:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There's no way these users are spending this amount of time [editing]"... uh, have you ever met college students or retirees? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When he put up the admin stats screenshot, he actually thought that the user rights were "restricting editor's privileges". The lack of thought or research put into it is just painful to watch. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 16:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only had a chance to watch about 10 minutes of it but I enjoyed the part where he interpreted the scatter plot chart averages to mean I'm editing Wikipedia 19 hours per day, seven days per week. What has happened to STEM education?
On the other hand, I was a little embarrassed when he showed my admin stats -- 14 editors blocked in seven years. They don't realize it, but they probably have a decent case to get me recalled on the basis of sloth/lethargy. Chetsford (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, get blocking then![sarcasm] WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
buried talk pages (~51min in) is the place I had to stop. I didn't realise until now that talk page archiving was a plot of the evil anti-UFO Cabal, let alone that it will lead to Jimbo being RICO'd. The more you know. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean this cabal? Don't you know there is no such cabal? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that only proves the cabal more. Every Time we deny the cabal the list of RICO'd editors gets 10 names longer.
We shouldn't worry though, Mr Ford's (very relistic) suggestion (outside of a lawsuit) is just a simple bit of "congressional legislation that puts an end to this information warfare that is occurring on Wikipedia" (@56:03 [I did unfortunately watch the rest in the end]), Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tuesday: "The government has murdered UFO whistleblowers."[3]
Wednesday: "We're going to get the government to pass a law that says UFO whistleblowers have to be treated better on Wikipedia." Chetsford (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're onto us... Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 23:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to comment "Hi! Chetsford here!" to troll them back. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, *I'm* Chetsford! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A general statement: Please do not 'troll' people whose backgrounds and worldviews differ from your own. Whether you attribute the beliefs to culture, faith, or psychology, it's a very bad thing for the project when any of our or editors create even the appearance of impropriety. Feoffer (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Thank you for helping to maintain the integrity of the project. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply moved from Talk:Harald Malmgre

[edit]

Comment moved here after suggestion from another editor No offense meant, we all feel adrenaline, after the offwiki stuff aimed at you, no one would blame you if you felt it too. I'll change tacks. A lot of your recent "extra comments" on this subject could be better. (perhaps the same can be said of me.) When I log into Wikipedia, I feel a tremendous duty to avoid spreading not only my own personal biases but also to avoid generating even the appearance of impropriety. There are people who believe the government are covering up UFOs, and I understand how that can sound a bit silly. But those peopel really do deserve the same respect as people all around the world who, say, observe Diwali as a celebration of the coronation of the god king Rama after his epic battle with Ravena, the demon king of Lankat. It's fine if that might secretly somehow sound a bit silly to me in the privacy of my own mind, but I still owe Hindu editors respect and dignity, even if I am pruning their PROMO edits from the project. Alternatively, if you view yourself fighting not the faithful but people acting in bad faith, I would still say you shouldn't engage as you have been, only in this scenario I would cite "Don't Feed The Trolls". Whether you know it or not, you've made a lot of "unforced errors" lately. A lot of your edits have given the unfortunate impression you're a renegade partisan -- I don't know you, but I certainly don't believe that! Your articlespace edits seem fine, but "neatness counts": The perception of open bias against a particular population -- however fringe -- makes us all look bad. Feoffer (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever felt "adrenaline" from editing Wikipedia (!), I don't know who the demon king of Lankat is, and I'm not sure to which of my comments you're referring. Sorry I couldn't help. Best - Chetsford (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, Feoffer, I am in partial agreement with what I think your underlying point is. In fact, soon after I became aware I was significantly mentioned off-WP in relation to the Malgrem article, I drew down my mainspace edits to it and don't intend to resume. While involvement doubtfully crosses into COI, I think you are correct that it may create the appearance of bias. In that sense, you would be right to hold me to what I said in my RfA, "perception is as important as intent in our interactions with other". Chetsford (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That reply made my day, thank you! I don't know who the demon king of Lankat is And that's precisely why I chose that verbiage. A narrative deeply sacred to a billion people is often indistinguishable from promotional fanfiction. Best to err on the side of universal respect. :) Thanks for the kind reply Feoffer (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Luis Corvalán

[edit]

On 26 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Luis Corvalán, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that anti-Pinochet dissident Luis Corvalán (pictured) had his appearance surgically altered by Soviet doctors before returning to Chile? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Luis Corvalán. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Luis Corvalán), 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of town

[edit]

I will have irregular internet access for the next few weeks. My response to comments, messages, subpoenas, material witness warrants, Interpol red notices, and transmissions from Ashtar Galactic Command may be slightly delayed. Thank you for your patience. Chetsford (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

[edit]
I totally get where you're coming from about wanting to head off potentially disruptive edits re: that page, especially since you've been getting harassed by people over that AfD. I just want to give that specific editor the benefit of the doubt since he is trying to do things the "right" way and has contributed to other pages (so it isn't a case of not here). Thanks for all that you do on Wikipedia. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, well at least I tried. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sol Foundation note

[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to let you know I have edited my remarks, due to the fact I have substantilly expanded the article sourcing at The Sol Foundation. You may wish to read my update and if it has any relevance to your own remarks there, should they warrant updating or amending. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've now completed my evaluation of the new sources here [4]. Best - Chetsford (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Christopher Mellon

[edit]

You nominated the original page for deletion. The draft is 100% rewritten. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice.

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. @ Ben.Gowar (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are the former director of the CIA? We are impressed, fellow human editor. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... a secret so closely guarded that even I didn't know ... Chetsford (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Agnes Haegens

[edit]

You didn’t accept Draft:Agnes Haegens. But I think you made an error in this review. Or can you explain why these sources are not reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject?

  • "De intrede van Anna Elisabeth De Ruysscher in Roosendael" (PDF). erfgoedcelkapelleopdenbos.be (in Dutch). Retrieved 4 July 2021. —> a published extensive and well referenced artikel by an historic association.
  • A. Goetstouwers, De oorkonden der Abdij Rozendaal der orde van Cîteaux, Vol. 1, Tongerlo, 1956 —> an book written about the history of the abdy. If you want some visualization see here.

Your explanation is welcome. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article from Erfgoedcel Kapelle-op-den-Bos is certainly fine. The Granjé text, due to its antiquity, is doubtfully WP:RS as it would be a stretch to presume that an 18th century manuscript was written to contemporary standards of scholarship. Verifiable information based on it will be replicated in contemporary works if significant and should be sourced from those rather than Granjé directly.
That brings us to the Goetstouwers book. I can't confirm its reliability. I can find no information on the publisher St.-Norbertus Drukkerij nor any information on the qualifications of the author Goetstouwers. If you have further information, feel free to share it, however, even then I'm not certain that these two sources are enough to pass the standards of multiple, reliable sources providing significant coverage. Perhaps they are but before exploring if that's the case, I'd first need to affirm the veracity and reliability of Goetstouwers. Chetsford (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, OK. Thanks for your extensive explanation. Appreciated! Ill try to find some more sources. That would be the best solution. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. If you resubmit it feel free to let me know and I can review it expeditiously instead of it having to go back into the queue. However, you may also prefer to have a fresh editor review it, which is fine also. Chetsford (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I resubmitted it already. Feel free to comment on it or review it, or otherwise at some point someone else will probably pick it up. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we gonna nerd fight, let's fuckin do it right, we got shit to cite

[edit]

It's a quieter venue, talk page is open to all: User:Very Polite Person/draft/Christopher Mellon. If we gonna nerd fight, let's fuckin do it right, we got shit to cite. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I feel compelled to inquire if you have a potential WP:COI with this individual? This is not an accusation, but an educated observation; there are only certain situations in which I've encountered an editor so fixated on getting a specific BLP into mainspace. Thank you, in advance, for any additional insight you can provide. Chetsford (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Look at my user page and oldest contributions, that's where I always curve toward. It's just a weird WP:BLP intersection of what I've been writing about since I joined. See Born secret, Invention Secrecy Act, Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station, more like that; follow the outoubnd links from those. Each of them has several articles I'll be expanding one click away. I like finding obscurities in the topics I'm interested in, and then seeing how far I can grow them. If those little rocks get shiny, then they'll outlast me. This was a particularly annoying one since it was such a pain to find sources, and I like a challenge. That's all. Take the little one and make it big. I have my eye on a ton of stubs that if I have enough time, someday, they'll all be 50k+.
Want to help build this one? I noticed you're a builder too. The harder ones are most fun. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Look at my user page and oldest contributions" I plan to Chetsford (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, at your convenience: Draft_talk:Christopher Mellon#Draft integrated -- Notability and References_analysis with extensive scrutiny of all the most frequently used sourcing. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I've spent too much time at this BLP already. If I don't ever hear about Christopher Mellon again it'll be too soon. If you think it's fine, I'm sure it's fine. Someone else will look at it during AfC. Chetsford (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).

Administrator changes

added Rusalkii
readded NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)
removed

Interface administrator changes

removed Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Close on BLPCRIME

[edit]

Thanks for the close. I just wanted to ping you about it because you quoted me. I never bothered to update my original comment since the issue was clarified in the discussion that followed, but this wasn’t a case of WP:IAR. WP:BLPCRIME doesn’t prohibit including the name. Those arguments should be discounted. Many of the exclude votes cited a version of the policy that doesn’t exist and offered no other rationale for exclusion. I’m working on updating the verbiage of BLPCRIME, since so many editors are incorrectly citing it. It can’t even be considered WP:WIKILAWYERING, since they’re not even citing a literal interpretation of the actual rule. I'm not sure there's a consensus after discounting those arguments, but acknowledging the misuse of BLPCRIME in the close would be helpful in getting the policy updated with clearer language. Thanks again! Nemov (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the clarification, I can't close the RfC on the basis of the potential for future changes to policies. While it's not explicitly described in our closing guidelines, I think it's reasonably implicit that closures have to occur at the current coordinates of our spatiotemporal existence. They cannot be deferred to hypothetical loci beyond the empirically accessible present. Chetsford (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing hypothetical about the fact that there were several comments in that RFC that cited the policy incorrectly and offered nothing else. The policy isn't changing. Nemov (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. After considering your appeal, I decline to amend the close. You may, however, file a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Chetsford (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOCON

[edit]

Thank you for closing the discussion at Talk:Suicide methods. I think you should consider slightly revising your wording in one spot: "As per WP:NOCONSENSUS, the article should reflect the last stable version prior to the RfC." NOCON doesn't use words like "should". NOCON says "the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit", which is just a statement of statistical fact, rather than a statement about what "should" happen. I think it's very helpful to make a recommendation about what to do in this kind of situation, but I'd like people not to believe that NOCON actually has a "should" about this. Perhaps you could see your way to a small copyedit?

While I'm here, let me say how much I appreciate you saying both "no consensus to include" and "no consensus to exclude". I think that when we write only one, people don't read it as really being equal. (The same thing happens in other areas: "50% survival rate" is mathematically equal to a 50% death rate, but people have different emotional reactions to the two ways of stating the same fact.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Chetsford (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think your closure was fair, excellently reasoned, and meticulously explained as to avoid any questions of unfair methodology… except for the “addedum”; I’m not sure if this was your intention but it sounds like you’re trying to subtly endorse the “include” side as morally correct and nudge them towards their goal. If you can’t close an RFC without disclosing your personal opinion on the topic then vote as a regular user or forever hold your peace. Dronebogus (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't really care one way or the other if we include crisis line hatnotes. However, if someone wants to include them it would be better to amend our policies to allow such notes, not try to wedge them into articles one-by-one using IAR. I'm not certain that is a disqualifying assertion. But if the limit of my opinion in this regard wasn't apparent in my wording, then I express my regretnotice. Chetsford (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC); edited 12:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On contentious or "emotional" topics, especially when the closer believes it necessary to close "against" the majority, adding a suggestion for a path forward is not unusual and is usually appreciated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Christopher Mellon is a second WP:BLP violation there. Please stop.

[edit]
Closing as an unrequested favor to the OP Chetsford (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=prev&oldid=1290151780

See: Talk:Christopher Mellon#Extended negative family history is inappropriate for a WP:BLP

Please do not re-add it again. As an Admin you know better. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've asked before, but I feel it's necessary to inquire again: do you have a COI with Christopher Mellon? Also, please stop inserting WP:HOAXes into articles, like Mellon was the head of the NSA. Chetsford (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Nothing to do with him. Like I said, it just is a BLP intersection of the national security sorts of topics I was already interested in. Do you agree WP:BLP is our master-level law here? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, can you explain why you're introducing hoaxes into this BLP? I believe you know Mellon never was the head of the NSA. Chetsford (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please stop inserting WP:HOAXes into articles, like Mellon was the head of the NSA.
You will be tasked to retract that, which I did no such thing of. The article clearly is sourced from the content here, and this is just the sort of reason why I saved all my research there--forever. Feel free to control-F for national security agency and NSA: [[5]]. To say he "oversaw" the NSA along with his post/details there is perfectly sourced/summatation and zero WP:OR. Example quote: "Nevertheless, the important part is that Mellon cracked the NSA's books..."
You will retract this or we'll see each in dispute resolution: your return to the article in this fashion after I rebuilt it from scratch after your AFD that claimed it was, quoting you... being "imaginative" by writing, "A standard WP:BEFORE finds more numerous instances of one sentence quotes from him all over the media, but nothing proving WP:SIGCOV." ...is rapidly becoming disruptive. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide the source you used that said Mellon oversaw the National Security Agency? A direct link will be fine. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"He was also coming to realize that the agency was ill equipped to seize the coming changes. A young man named Christopher Mellon, on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s staff, kept coming around, asking questions. Mellon had heard the briefings on Fort Meade’s adaptations to the new digital world; but when he came to headquarters and examined the books, he discovered that, of the agency’s $4 billion budget, just $2 million was earmarked for programs to penetrate communications on the Internet. Mellon asked to see the personnel assigned to this program; he was taken to a remote corner of the main floor, where a couple dozen techies—out of a workforce numbered in the tens of thousands—were fiddling with computers." -- page 35, this source here.
Do you have a preferred wording to describe his actions in the act of overseeing the NSA as part of his role within that Senate committee? Please start a new talk section on the article. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That, in no way, supports the fallacious claim Mellon "oversaw the National Security Agency" which you crammed into the lead in this edit [6]. Do you have any other sources or is that what you're going to go with? Chetsford (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have better suggested language between that and the other content we've quoted extensively across that talk page archive? I'm not married to the language either way. Your opinion is noted but has no particular power. We're just two editors. I'm fine leaving the passage out if you were to find your self unusually emotionally discomforted by it. Are you ok? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, to clarify, you have no sources for the edit that Mellon "oversaw the NSA"? Let me ruminate for a bit on the best way to address this issue. Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ruminate on what? To call this is a hoax is up there with creating a Wikipedia article just to backdoor Nazi family allegations into a BLP, no? Is this Admin appropriate behavior? You can admit you lost. The article isn't going away. Do you have preferred wording for the verb oversaw? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You can admit you lost." Please see WP:BATTLEGROUND. I'd stop digging. Chetsford (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2025 (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.

What I learned at school

[edit]

In response to an entirely unsatisfactory ArbCom case (is there any other kind?) I wrote this to one of the principals, who like you is an overwhelmingly net positive to the project. My Magic 8 Ball and I believe it might also apply to you, or that it might soon apply to you, as from where I sit some olfactory cues within the current ANI discussion have turned most foul. So, in the interest of retaining a valuable editor (I didn't write "administrator," as I recognize that no one is perfect) in the topic area who actually contributes good content, perhaps this is a good time to Let It Go, if only for a wee while. Note that there are other experienced editors on hand in the topic area, and they not only remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, but will sooner or later edit any affected articles accordingly, and appropriately. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like sound advice. One is probably inclined to act with excessive defense when targeted with of an onslaught of off-WP turnstile editors and simply moving on to something else is probably the best course of action. Chetsford (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]