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, 43, 44, 45, 46

Messages from bots may not be preserved in the archives.

Thank you for uploading File:David Wilcock.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - You have just provided a link the the photostream and not the specific image. CAn you update it with a link to the actual image? -- Whpq (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq - thank you, sorry, that was a copy/paste error by me. It should be fixed now. Chetsford (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chetsford. I hope you are well. I am turning to you because you worked a bit on Len Blavatnik#Philanthropy back in October (see Talk:Len Blavatnik/Archive 1#Update Philanthropy section). Recently, after an editor deleted that Philanthropy section wholesale, there has been a discussion on how to rebuild the section: Talk:Len Blavatnik#Philanthropy sections. But now all the participants in the discussion seem to have lost interest - would you mind taking a look as an uninvolved editor, helping us get to a reasonable conclusion, and carrying out whatever edits need to be made as a result? Thank you! C at Access (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with your proposed edits to the Philanthropy section, however, given the level of engagement this isn't a simple edit request that can be actioned as (IIRC) I did last time. But I understand it can be frustrating when there's a surge of interest and then everyone moves on leaving the discussion in limbo. Can you ping a few of the more recently active editors in the discussion as a reminder and see if they object to your latest suggestions? If you don't hear back from anyone in a week, let me know. And thank you, again, for your diligence in following the "rulebook" so to speak, even if it does mean things proceed very slow. Chetsford (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks! C at Access (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chetsford thanks for reviewing Draft:Spirit of Cricket. Was surprised to see that you termed it as a Neologism. Spirit of Cricket is not a new phrase. It was coined in the late 1990s by MCC members and former England captains, Ted Dexter and Lord Colin Cowdrey, including it as a preamble to the Laws of cricket.

When it comes to notability, the phrase continues to be in the media perennially, so much so that Prime Ministers of Both Australia and Britain commented on a spirit of cricket incident surrounding Jonny Bairstow's Ashes run-out.

A few examples of well-know publications talking about Spirit of cricket are New York Times The Guardian Sky Sports BBC CNN Arab News Khaleej Times India Today NDTV India TV. I can cite dozens more. Have included some of these as references in the draft.

Would request you to re-consider review. Thanks Time-is-wealth (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chetsford, have added two new sections Notable Acts Upholding the Spirit of Cricket & Incidents Questioning the Spirit of Cricket along with 10 fresh citations.

Have resubmitted for review. Please consider it. Time-is-wealth (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've re-reviewed it. If you decide to resubmit again, it would be best if a different editor review it on the next pass so just wait a bit and someone will be along to address it in the queue. Chetsford (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Chetsford,

I am @Broskalitre and I recently posted an extended confirmed permission request at WP:RFP/EC. I hope you have time to check out my request and respond.

Thank you, @Broskalitre Broskalitre (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Broskalitre - thanks for the note. I've declined your request here [1]. Best - Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please unlock the page for Capital City College Group. You are not the owner of the page and the page is wrong. The college amends the page to reflect the correct details, and then you have reverted to an old (incorrect version) and locked us out. 2A01:4B00:820C:1800:9C51:C196:EA87:AC51 (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2A01:4B00:820C:1800:9C51:C196:EA87:AC51 - on the basis of your use of the personal pronoun us, and your indication of affiliation with other IP addresses that have recently edited the page in question, I believe you may have recently violated our WP:PAID editing policies. This is often due to simple misunderstanding by a WP:COI editor. I have blocked you for a short period of time. The block will expire in a few days. This will give you a chance to review our WP:PAID editing policies at a leisurely and convenient pace. If you think it's appropriate the block be lifted sooner, you can request that here. Thank you and happy editing! Chetsford (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for at least removing the offending paragraph! 2A01:4B00:820C:1800:9C51:C196:EA87:AC51 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly welcome. It would be helpful if you create an account and, in the future, just register requests on the article's Talk page using WP:EDITREQ. Before doing so, please review WP:PAID. Chetsford (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok will do, thanks 2A01:4B00:820C:1800:9C51:C196:EA87:AC51 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chetsford, it's User:Supreme Rankling. I've finally regained access with help of Wikimedia team. So you can block my Supreme Rankling account. Also please block my User:Roman Reigns Fanboy as I don't need it. Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Chetsford (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]