User talk:PhanChavez

Your submission at Articles for creation: Group of Five conferences (December 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Group of Five conferences and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Group of Five conferences, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, PhanChavez! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Group of Five conferences (January 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Group of Five conferences and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Group of Five conferences, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

New User Dispute Resolution Request

2 May 2024

I wanted a view on the Group of Five similar to what exists for Power Five. Before the second rejection for Group of Five, I was unaware of the Mid-major terminology or usage.

When I hear talking heads (i.e. media personalities, ESPN) discussing College Football, I hear the terms "Power Five" or "Group of Five." I have not previously heard "mid-major" except in passing, and assumed it referred to NCAA Division II or NAIA opposed to NCAA.

While the Mid-major page has some important and notable information, its tone/style is questionable, and it does not include details . The Mid-major page is tagged as such, and I would agree: Poorly written.

Creating a new article requires an account, and so I created an account. I have read through various degrees of documentation about creating Wikipedia articles. In the process of reviewing existing information across numerous articles, I was unaware of the Mid-major designation. I did not see that term mentioned or linked to from other College Football articles (a less notable designation; less commonly used in current College Football). I took the time to understand and use the formats on the Power Five page to create a draft for Group of Five. The source behind is marked-up with hidden comments where it relates to other Wikipedia articles.

The first draft was rejected for lack of notability. I sat down to clarify things. I read through each of the citations used (sans paging through the whole of each NCAA manual), made additional citations separate from the Power Five page, re-phrased things, re-submitted, and waited.

The second draft was rejected due to "splitting."

IMO: Providing a Group of Five conferences page, specifically about the Group of Five in College Football, alongside the Power Five, makes more sense than redirecting "Group of Five conferences" to "Mid-major." (But that's just my opinion.)

Reviewing when that action took place, it happened AFTER creation of the "Group of Five conferences" draft was initially created.

Page	Creation Date	User
Draft:Group_of_Five_conferences	27 December 2019	User:PhanChavez
Group of Five conferences (redirect)	4 January 2020	User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse

There exists a redirect link for High-major (redirect), created in 2011, which points to Mid-major. The Mid-major page seems to be poorly named if it addresses both Mid-major and High-major.

In truth, all of this is just a bit confusing. I came to Wikipedia with the intent of being a helpful contributor: To fill-in-the-blanks, to provide a disambiguation along the lines of terms I am familiar with Group of Five versus Power Five in terms of College Football. I did not think about other sports. Possibly my mistake.

On 16 January 2020, User:Robert_McClenon rejected Draft:Group_of_Five_conferences. At best guess, due to the conflict caused by User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse's creation of a redirect link; without review of respective creation dates or details.

Rhetorical questions

• Why does High-major redirect to Mid-major?
• Why shouldn't there be a Group of Five page laying out conferences, teams, and a map, similar to Power Five?
• Why should a page meant to be similar to Power Five redirect to a dissimilar page; where the dissimilar named page has numerous issues (weasel words, tone/style)?

Actions Taken

I requested help in IRC. The suggestion by Dragonfly6-7 was to follow User:Robert_McClenon's directions to post on the Talk:Mid-major page (done), or bring it to the attention of WikiProject_American_football. Though the Wikipedia:WikiProject_American_football page, I found Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football. I tagged the Draft:Group_of_Five_conferences and Mid-major pages with the College football project's tag. In addition, I looked-up and pegged the Mid-major page with a College basketball project tag.

Implicit Actions Taken

Review of the respective histories (see table above with dates).

Observations

In reviewing User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse's contributions history, it appears that, similar to, or following notes in the source behind Draft:Group_of_Five_conferences, many pages were updated with links to "Group of Five" after the redirect was created. Each of the pages for the respective conferences in the Group of Five were updated, among others, including College Football Playoff and New Year's Six (about 20 edits in total).

These actions were taken without the existing draft page receiving notification; the draft page and redirect have the same name (url).

Interpretation

In essence, I'm left with the feeling that the second rejection by User:Robert_McClenon comes on the heels of insincere and dishonest actions undertaken by User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse. At the very least, User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse could have made a note on the draft, or my talk page, or any number of other resources about this, or even performed the review and provided feedback prior to User:Robert_McClenon's review and rejection.

Thus causing conflict and confusion.

Notably: Either User:Robert_McClenon or User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse, in their respective capacities as experienced Wikipedia users, could have performed said actions. The contents of Draft:Group_of_Five_conferences could have been dropped into Mid-major#Football as a subsection, with minimal effort. Instead, due to User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse's actions, the suggestion from User:Robert_McClenon is to talk about splitting a page which does not follow a similar format to Power Five. Given the subsequent edits by User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse after creating the redirect, it only makes sense that User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse would perform some clean-up on the page to which Group of Five should redirect to, Mid-major. But I don't see any edits to the Mid-major page by User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse.

Help Request

I reviewed Wikipedia's pages on Dispute Resolution. Since this has not been talked about extensively, the most appropriate measure is to use my own talk page, and tag it with "helpme" to seek a volunteer's attention to the matter.

IMO: I am trying (as a new user), and I have performed some due-diligence actions behind understanding decisions made and actions taken.

I would invite the two users involved,

• @Robert McClenon: Honorable mention
• @Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse: Honorable mention

... to each, respectively weigh-in with their thoughts on this matter, and that another editor, manager, administrator or volunteer provide some in-depth feedback on steps forward. Or, clean-up hereabouts.

Especially since I can understand User:Robert_McClenon's review and rejection, versus User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse's in-depth actions taken after creating a redirect.

Do not use the help me template for this. You can go to WP:DRN. Praxidicae (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey there. I looked at your draft of the page and I like it better than my redirect, for what it is worth. I just was trying to be helpful in someone finding the information in the future. Hope you get your page put in there since there is already one for the Power Five Conferences. Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Slow Down

User:PhanChavez - You appear to be thrashing around trying to get your Draft:Group of Five conferences accepted and are making a mess of things in good faith. Slow down and go to the Teahouse and ask for advice. I am removing your Third Opinion request because it is also pending at AFD, although AFD is the wrong deletion forum. Just slow down and ask for advice rather than making a mess. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: While I object to the "thrashing around" comment, I understand what you're saying. However, I'm not the one who started making a mess of things. I followed the rules in creating a draft and submitting it for AfC, revising, and then re-submitting. I appreciate your review. Despite User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse's "good faith" response here, I believe that's where the "mess of things" started. I will go to the Teahouse and ask for advice. Rhetorical: What are the odds someone there suggests Third Opinion? The "mess" I've started is no more or less than the intermediary confusion caused by what I've come to view as User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse's dishonest or insincere actions. Good Faith requires due diligence, and edits I made to other articles pending acceptance were quickly and easily available in the histories of those respective pages, related to the "Group of Five" label. I only made those edits after doing the work and submitting a stub article to give equal footing to another commonly used term. I'll follow your suggestion to post in the Teahouse, but if nobody can give me a path forward, or if nobody wants to be any more helpful than running in circles, then my next step is to write-up my impressions, along the lines of articles about Wikipedia's problems, effectively saying: "Now I have my own experience with this issue people read about on a regular basis." Because I give-up if first people say things like "Good Faith" and "Be Nice" and then won't look at root-cause or systemic issues and be helpful toward fixing things. There's not much more I can do than say something, and if people don't care or won't pay attention, then spinning my wheels trying to do the right thing and go about things the right way is a waste of my time. Everybody here who leverages their power in whatever capacity can keep their edit-wars and differences of opinion. I've got better things to do with my time than invest it in pointless and fruitless efforts. PhanChavez (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've closed the dispute resolution noticeboard request because it is not the appropriate forum for your current issues. Praxidicae was off base in declining the help request and sending you there, but I would suggest that if you want any further help, you should go to the teahouse, which is our designated forum for experienced editors to help out newbies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Rosguill: So @Praxidicae: declines help, points to DRN. I post in DRN and 3O. 3O is closed by @Robert McClenon: due to DRN. You closed the DRN. My teahouse entry is pending (so to speak). That gets another "go talk about it (somewhere)" statement pointing me in yet another direction: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion. I've already seeded the conflicting/confusing redirect for deletion. Along the way, I notice another WP:SPLIT or WP:SPINOUT issue with User:Robert_McClenon's fingerprints all over it, which includes references to the AfC talk page. Not one, but two similar issues. I'm a new user, trying to learn. I feel like I've been bitten by one person's bias toward over-use of WP:SPLIT and WP:SPINOUT. Things since have not been very helpful; things since seem to be going in circles. Especially after I took the time to sit-down and figure-out the why behind the second rejection by User:Robert_McClenon. Simply put, I took the time to figure it out, outlined my thoughts, tried to follow policy and procedure to the best of my ability being new, and I'm being bitten again by fleas and gnats causing me to chase my tail. Can someone please sit down and take the time to read through the above observations, entries on the Teahouse, elsewhere, and say: "Here's what's been done, here's what you need to do. Here's how to handle this situation in the future." Don't bite. Please be helpful. PhanChavez (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think that an editor who has been editing Wikipedia long enough to use the guideline not to bite the newbies as a cudgel to hit other editors with is an editor who is entitled, as are all editors, to be treated with civility and respect, but is no longer a newbie. (Let experienced editor A caution experienced editor B about biting the newbies.) An editor who takes advantage of another editor admitting that they might have made mistakes to scold them (and, yes, User:PhanChavez is doing exactly that, scolding me severely, largely because I admitted that I might have been mistaken) is an editor who may still need to slow down, and who may need to treat other editors with more courtesy. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Can you please point me to where you admitted you might have been mistaken. I do not see that anywhere in the history behind this, but I may be skipping over it as I try to read through and understand things. If I've stepped out of line, I'll issue an apology. Before that, I stand firm. I see no malice in your actions caused by another user's conflicting creation of a redirect. But I do have some concerns, otherwise, as noted elsewhere while reading-through and trying to come up-to-par on how Wikipedia is managed and edited. PhanChavez (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

User:PhanChavez - Before I research where I asked for advice about spinout requests and splits, I will make two points. First, an editor who says that they are a new editor seeking help should not be so quick to scold another editor, and you are being quite aggressive in scolding me for my handling of your spinout request. If you really want help, it is better to be polite and show a little willingness to learn than to be quick to prove your own rightness. Second, an editor who is quoting as many policies and guidelines as you are, whether to demonstrate your knowledge or for whatever reason, should be accurate in their statements of actions taken by other editors. I did not reject your draft. If you don't know the difference between rejection of a draft and declining of a draft, that is understandable, but, if so, you should recognize that you still have much to learn and should be a little less quick to scold other editors. I did not reject your draft. I declined it. Those are different actions. If you don't know the difference, then you do still need to learn, which you say you know, but, since you still need to learn, you should be listening rather than scolding. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't plan to provide you with the diffs of where I asked for advice about spinouts and splits. You are not an arbitrator, and I do not need to account to you, and I do not expect you to apologize, even though you should. You can make a choice of whether to be a combative editor, an editor who runs around making messes, or an editor who asks for advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I've learned a great deal from your example. PhanChavez (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The diffs of where and what you've done are public. And, if not available for review by the general public, then your peers. (Moot point.) PhanChavez (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I offered an apology if you could point me to where I mistook something (made a mistake) or skipped-over it. Your subsequent response doesn't lead me toward any further inclination. PhanChavez (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I have since taken bold action following WP:RFD. I was going to offer you the opportunity to deal with applying WP:CSD to Draft:Group_of_Five_conferences, but it looks like User:Fastily has already dealt with it, so, I propose we just drop it (a peace offering on my part). PhanChavez (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Group of Five conferences. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi PhanChavez! You created a thread called Conflicting Edits/AfC at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi PhanChavez! You created a thread called Talk, Discussion Content: Indents vs. Bullet Points at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Please take some time to learn how things work.

Hi. I recently reverted two edits you made. One was to copy Draft:Aid Worker Security Database into the main article space, the other was to tag that draft for speedy deletion. I see that you are new here. We enthusiastically encourage new editors to join the project, but moving things in and out of draft space and proposing pages for speedy deletion are fairly advanced functions. I suggest you take things slower and learn how the project works before diving into these more advanced parts of administering the encyclopedia. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Did you read the talk page and did you pay heed to the edit notes? Did you review the full history before reverting? PhanChavez (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've put this back to the redirect. Please do not revert that again. If you continue down this path, you will end up getting blocked. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• • @RoySmith: Are you threatening me by saying that you will abuse your privileges as an administrator without review of historical actions? Or are you only pointing to actions that I have justified without explaining your own? Are you covering for other administrators who have stepped out of line? PhanChavez (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Your recent editing history at Aid Worker Security Database shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Do not restore your added material w/o talk page consensus. Your edit warring is disruptive. If you persist I will reluctantly block you. This should be understood as a formal  Warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Warning from AIV

Do not make another bad-faith AIV report as you did here (first time here). If you have a problem with a certain article, please use the talk page. Reporting those who you disagree with to AIV isn't going to make your current situation any better. theinstantmatrix (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Theinstantmatrix: And when neither of the two individuals coordinating to avoid 3RR (sock/meat puppetry) post on my talk page, but not the relevant talk page in question? I already posted on the talk page in question. I don't see any follow-up remarks from either of the individuals there. Why not? (Police your own.)

Your thread has been archived

Hi PhanChavez! You created a thread called Administrative Misconduct at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi PhanChavez! You created a thread called Full History at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Re your comment of February 1 on my Talk page

Hi, PhanChavez. I use and enjoy Wikipedia on my own terms. Having a Talk page is involuntary (and not a bad thing). I don't, however, have at this stage any impulse to participate in the social aspects of Wikipedia. On the internet, nobody know you're a dog.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)