This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Northamerica1000.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.
Hi, am wikicology. Thank you for your contributions.Wikipedia appreciates your help. I will find it very unconstructive to template you as regards your recent edithere due toWP:DTR. I suggest that you should always leave your contributions with a summary. Althou it might not be intentional because I'm prety sure that you are very much familiar with the policy. Please kindly take the use of edit summary into consideration.Wikicology (talk)08:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand that you are right and am familiar with the use of conventions. Perhaps I never sighted in in the first instance. However new editors may not be familiar with that. Cheers.Wikicology (talk)10:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
HiUser:Joy: the discussion was relisted per procedures stated atWP:RELIST, wherein it states "However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus.".
The discussion only has three total participants (including the nomination) and only two !votes, not a very strong input to draw a consensus from. If you want the article deleted, feel free to formalize the matter by adding "delete" in bold to your comment there, as is the procedure at AfD discussions.NorthAmerica100003:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 September 2014
Op-ed:Media Viewer software is not ready Last month, I wrote an open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation, inviting others to join me in a simple but important request: roll back the recent actions—both technical and social—by which the Wikimedia Foundation has overruled legitimate decisions of several Wikimedia projects.
Traffic report:Refuge in celebrity Even though it's not quite 3/4 over, it's safe to say that 2014 will go down as a year of war, mass murder, plane crashes and terrible diseases. While certainly paying it some heed, it's not surprising that Wikipedia viewers tried this week to find any alternative to that litany of tragedy and pain, and their chosen method of escape was, as usual, celebrity.
Featured content:The louse and the fish's tongue The amazing and strange tongue-eating louse replacing a fish's tongue! Because isopods, the subject of a new featured article, are both awesome and really damn weird!
WikiProject report:Checking that everything's all right This week, theSignpost decided to have a look around with WikiProject Check Wikipedia a maintenance project not concerned so much with articles' content, but in all the tiny errors that are to be found scattered within them. Their front page gives a list of things they mainly focus on ...
HiUser:James500: I bolded your part of your !vote atthis discussion because it's the standard procedure in AfD discussions. SeeWP:AFDFORMAT, which explains procedures for contributing to AfD discussions. Bold is used because, per the linked page, "Some bots and tools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words, so following this convention is highly recommended." Also, the AfD logs have been hefty lately, and without the bold, it's possible that your !vote could be missed by a closer. My addition of the bold did not change the content of your !vote other than to add bold to the word "keep". Hope this helps to clarify why the edit was performed.NorthAmerica100021:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Bolding !votes is "highly recommended" but not compulsory. Accordingly, I would be grateful if you do not modify my !votes in future. Thank you.James500 (talk)22:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
HiUser:James500: I'll do my best to remember, and sure, I understand why one wouldn't want anything in their !vote changed whatsoever, not even by simply adding bold to the first word. I notice that you undid the bold in your !vote there. Just out of curiosity, why don't you want to follow the recommended procedures for AfD? I'm not going to change it, but just wondering. At any rate, happy editing.NorthAmerica100022:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Latesttech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.Translations are available.
Recent software changes
You can now change the style of links to disambiguation pages. This is done with themw-disambigCSS class.[1][2]
There was a problem on right-to-left wikis with Wikidata log entries. The text was messy in watchlists and recent changes. The problem is now fixed. The same problem will be fixed soon for user names.[3][4][5]
New users are randomly chosen for a test on 12 Wikipedias. They get messages withideas of articles to edit. The ideas come from what they have already edited.[6]
Problems
There was a problem with loading images on September 10.[7]
VisualEditor news
If you don't select text when you add a link, the link now shows a number.[8]
The citation tool no longer offers to reuse a citation if there are none on the page yet.[9][10]
You can now use help buttons in the "Page settings" menu to see what the options are for.[11]
Future software changes
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf21) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since September 11. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis on September 16, and on all Wikipedias on September 18 (calendar).
These changes are coming with the new version:
If you use Internet Explorer 7,JavaScript will no longer work. JavaScript tools and scripts will no longer work in that browser. You should update to a newer browser.[12][13][14]
This old one right hereBecky Love, now she was a finalist in a comp but what comes off as odd is the lack of refs and the fact the page creator has the same name as her. Not sure what to say about this old article.Wgolf (talk)04:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry don't think I ever really used it that much till today-which I thought you said you could put it for articles like that. So what is no footnotes used for then?Wgolf (talk)23:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay didn't realize that those don't go if there was a dead link-though looking at the history of all of those articles they all had the same links and never changed so I was trying to help the articles.Wgolf (talk)04:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Some of the articles though were stuff like links to something like Yahoo's main page or something like that so I deleted the link all together since those seemed a bit off. (Now ones I am not sure about are ones that link to really old PDF files)Wgolf (talk)04:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
HiUser:Wgolf: If a supposed reference links directly to Yahoo's main page (without a redirect, etc.), then sure, it's not a viable source. If it's a Yahoo News link that redirects to the Yahoo main page, for example, it's better to tag with a "dead link" template within the reference. As stated above, the content may be available through archive services. The bottom line is that articles that have sources formatted as inline citations should not have the BLP Unsourced template placed on them, even if the links are dead. Additionally, many other templates may be used, such as "unreliable sources", "BLP sources" (for BLP articles needing additional sources), etc., if necessary.NorthAmerica100004:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Per my request on your talk page to correct the matter for the articles incorrectly tagged, please just do that. No need to feel bad about honest mistakes whatsoever.NorthAmerica100005:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I have put the no foot notes tags on some. I have deleted some links that just went to a main page and put the unsourced (like they just went to a main page of a site instead of the actual story).Wgolf (talk)15:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
What should we do about articles who sources (or rather only source) requires a subscription
As is this case with this old article I just foundLinda Finnie, which I just put as a one source (which is what it is), but what should we do about links like that, when they say require subscription? I think maybe just keep it until someone gets more or something. Well I don't see anything wrong with the article its just the source is all.Wgolf (talk)22:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
(ping)User:Wgolf: For starters, check outWP:SOURCEACCESS, which states in part, "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." So, yes, definitely keep the source in place. Also, I've added the{{paywall}} template to the article's listed source. Regarding what to do with the article, as I stated above, I always perform several source searches prior to nominating any article for deletion, to check for topicnotability.NorthAmerica100023:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Update: I have added the following source to the article, and removed the one source template.
Rather than tagging everything, consider performing source searches and addingreliable sources to articles toverify content in them, if you're interested in this type of work. This serves to improve the encyclopedia to a much higher degree compared to just adding tags to articles, in my opinion.NorthAmerica100023:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject report:A trip up north to Scotland As Scotland is deciding its future this week, we thought it might be a good idea to get to know the editors of WikiProject Scotland and talk to them about the project.
News and notes:Wikipedia's traffic statistics are off by nearly one-third A prominent Wikipedia researcher has discovered that the encyclopedia's widely used article traffic statistics are missing out on approximately one-third of total views.
Traffic report:Tolstoy leads a varied pack There is no unifying theme we can slap on top article popularity this week.
Featured content:Which is not like the others? Four articles, two lists, and 51 pictures were promoted to "featured" status this week on the English Wikipedia.
Firstly, please realize that I am not necessarily contesting theclose as no consensus, though, in my biased opinion, the consensus was for something stronger. My question is more driven by simply looking at the criteria for closing. ReadingWikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures, I see that none of the four criteria are satisfied. I had a similar impression of thethis close. I agreed with your decision to relist it, but closing it the 2nd time seemed a bit strange to me.
I am myself interested in clearing the backlog of various stuff on wikipedia, as I sense your motivation was, so my questions are not just motivated by idle curiosity in this particular case.
The nominator had listed a bunch of points for his close: in my opinion, in the hope that something would stick. When you closed it, you made reference to none of those points. What prevents the nominator from simply renominating it with the same justification?Kingsindian (talk)06:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
RegardingWikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters, first of all, I base my closes uponWP:NACD, which is part of the Wikipedia:Deletion process guideline page, rather than the opinion essay you link above. It's clear that there was no consensus in the discussion, and the nominator's points were sufficiently addressed by participants in the discussion. Sometimes when closing discussions, it isn't always unnecessary to restate all of the points that participants discuss, because it's basically just rewriting all that's already been said. In this particular discussion, much of the commentary was thoroughly detailed, as well as being guideline- and policy-based.
RegardingWikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Jerusalem tractor attack, it was also clear that there was no consensus in the discussion. It's unclear what you mean above by “but closing it the 2nd time seemed a bit strange to me”. The discussion was only closed once. I relisted the discussion in hopes to obtain more input so that consensus could be determined. After adequate participation occurred, I closed the discussion accordingly.NorthAmerica100008:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I often confuse essays with policies. As I said, I am not knowledgeable in this area.
When you say that "the nominator's points were sufficiently addressed by participants in the discussion", and then you close the discussion as "no consensus", it is unclear to me what exactly you mean.
Considerthis. I see the "keep" option there as saying "A keep outcome reflects a rough consensus to retain (i.e. not delete) a page, though not necessarily in its current form." People were concerned about the title or the notability of some of the events, but as far as I can see, they did not give any convincing arguments for deleting the page altogether. As far as I understand, "no consensus" in AfD means something different: that there is doubt between keeping the article and deleting it.Kingsindian (talk)09:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately, both discussions did not reveal a solidconsensus for one particular action, hence the no consensus closes. For the most part, in the "2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters" deletion discussion, participants for article deletion and retention provided guideline- and policy-based rationales supporting their stances. While it's your opinion that delete !voters did not provide convincing arguments, which you're naturally entitled to, others interpreted various guidelines and policies differently than you in that discussion, and those views must be taken into consideration. Perthis section of the Deletion process guideline page, A no consensus close "reflects the lack of a rough consensus for any one particular action", which was evidentiary in the overall discussion that transpired.NorthAmerica100010:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I understand your reasoning a bit better now, though I still disagree with it. My only request is to indicate on the close which arguments you felt were arguable/had consensus and which did not. See for example the detailed justification givenhere. Otherwise the contentious issues will smoulder below the surface.Kingsindian (talk)10:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have slightly addended the close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters to reflect my viewpoint about the overall discussion.NorthAmerica100010:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I withdrew that AfD...
I noticed you relistedWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiend (film) (again). A while after the first relist I wrote that I was withdrawing it (since there had only been two, opposing, votes and I had changed my mind anyway) and removed the AfD template fromFiend (film) and posted that it had undergone a deletion discussion with the result of "withdrawn by nominator (keep)" on the talk page.
HiUser:Eman235: An outstanding delete !vote from another user exists in the discussion, so a speedy keep close (seeWP:SK#1) is incorrect to perform. With two remaining !votes in the discussion after your withdrawal, it is a valid discussion for relisting, perWP:RELIST.NorthAmerica100008:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
First of all, all this nonsense is totally unnecessary⟨ʔʌʊ--172.56.22.228 (talk)04:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)hItalic text⟩jhhjjs̬θ̼ʢð∉∴ℵ--~~gف~yيعאמtשњфσΣὍǚ₡₪≥≈←§–Ӱpeace and loveǎǍǍČē ĎĬmèĹĹâʂʃʃt͡sħβd͡ʒd͡ʑt͡ɕ jhj
No problem, and I understand that you want the article deleted. While my no consensus close was entirely accurate per the discussion therein, we'll see how it goes from this point onward.NorthAmerica100011:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Tachfin, you should absolutelynot have reopened that discussion by reverting the non-admin closure. Admins can revert non-admin closures. Don't like the result? Take it toWP:DRV. Your revert was reverted by an admin with the same closure result.St★lwart11123:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Stalwart111: Well AFAIK, non-admins should stay away from closing contentious AFDs (regardless if their decision was right or not. I myself, in a distant pass, did non-admins closure but only in absolutely non controversial cases; speedy keep, withdrawn nom etc). DRV is when an admin closes a debate. I still think that the current outcome was ill-considered and the current content of the article is crap, but this isn't the place for this debate. --Tachfin (talk)19:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Latesttech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.Translations are available.
Recent software changes
You can test a newBeta Feature called HHVM. It should make editing faster. Pleasereport bugs if you see them.[15]
Problems
There was a problem on the English Wikipedia on September 19. It was due to edits on a template used on many pages.
Sites were down for users in the Pacific area around 7:00 UTC on September 20. It was due to a problem in the San Francisco data center.
There were two bad bugs messing up articles in some browsers in VisualEditor. We fixed the bugs and updated the sites.[16][17]
Software changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf22) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since September 18. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis on September 23, and on all Wikipedias on September 25 (calendar).
If you have more than 2000 notifications, the oldest ones will be removed.[18][19]
In the "Vector" skin, the icon used for users will show a neutral gender.[20][21]
The VisualEditor template tool now tells you if a required field is missing.[22]
The "Cancel" button of the VisualEditor save window is now called "Resume editing". This shows that you can still edit and you won't lose your changes.[23]
There are new keyboard shortcuts in VisualEditor. Use Ctrl+Shift+6 forcode and Ctrl+Shift+5 forstrikethrough.[24][25]
In VisualEditor, you can now see that you are switching to the source editing mode. Before, it was not clear it was happening.[26]
Future site changes
You can see aplan for the move to Phabricator. It's the new tool to track bugs. Aguided tour will be done via video on September 24.[27]
(ping)User:Hafspajen: At the article you linked above, the section has content about grain pottage, but aquacotta historically wasn't and in contemporary times isn't prepared with grain. There's also content about "Julian stew", which was consumed by Roman soldiers, but that soup differs from acquacotta, such as being prepared with ground meat, wine and fennel, which acquacotta lacks. Without a reliable source to back up the assertion, I hesitate to add information about the Roman Empire to the acquacotta article.NorthAmerica100004:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Can't find book, maybe this?[28] The history of acquacotta go back to the dawn of human habitation in the area, for in fact, the Italic tribes used to offer their gods seasonal vegetables in the form of what we might term an “archaic acquacotta”. Today’s version is a dish with many seasonal variations, prepared with cultivated or wild greens, to which are added pork lard with garlic and marjoram.Hafspajen (talk)12:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
[29] It was used to make bread and porridge, the staples of the Roman diet. Poor people subsisted on a gruel-like soup of mush made from grain.Hafspajen (talk)12:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
All they could afford was soup and bread and porridge sometimes. ....[30]
I don't know...
http://www.latolfa.com/tolfa2000-7/english/inpagine/infolklore/cuisine.html - Getting closer, and an interesting read, but it's not a reliable source, and it's possible that the author is incorrect. If the author is correct, it's possible that the dish may have been "migrated" from southern Tuscany to Rome, which is in Lazio, south of Tuscany (the two regions border one-another)
Yes, I will need to start some more serious res about it, I think it was a book about food in ancient Rom, but I have to retrace my steps, somehow. Will take some time - and I am not sure I will succed... If I manage, I let you know.Hafspajen (talk)15:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedList of soups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageBisque. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.
On27 September 2014,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleMaccu, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was... that inSicily,maccu may be prepared onSaint Joseph's Day to clear out the pantry and make room for new spring vegetables? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Maccu. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,live views,daily totals), and it may be added tothe statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on theDid you know talk page.
I was looking through your page and contributions and whoa! I'm a huge fan, just saying thanks also for leaving that help thing on my page. Hopefully one day I can be one tenth as awesome as you!Vlolv (talk)19:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I have searched for a guideline or policy on whether a list article needs to have references, but I have not been successful in that search. In past years, when I have started a list article, no one expressed a need for references. However, more recently, some list articles that I have started have received tags indicating a need for references. (Please see "List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers" and "List of climate change books".) Because most list articles in Wikipedia seem to be without references, references seem to be unnecessary, but I am hesitant to remove the tags without mentioning a guideline or policy to support the removal. I have noticed that you have started many list articles, so you seem to be especially qualified to answer my question: Where does Wikipedia have a guideline or policy about whether a list article requires references? (I am adding your talk page to my watchlist.) —Wavelength (talk)17:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
RegardingList of climate change books, check out:WP:LISTN. Soucring content within the "Theme(s) and subtheme(s)" column of the table would be an improvement.
Thank you,Gadget850 andNorthAmerica. I have been pondering your replies and the guidelines to which you have linked. (I would have thought that the reader could visit the article for each of the listed entries to find supporting references, and that this would be also possible on mirror sites.)
If I am going to copy one or more references from each article to the corresponding list article, I would need to decide which reference(s) to choose, and then the list article would have a large number of references. I am still not well skilled in using the wikicode for references, although I can easily add external links within the tabulated lists. (The first column seems to me to be the most appropriate column for adding the references.)
Featured content:Oil paintings galore Six articles, four lists, one topic, and 17 pictures were promoted to "featured" status this week on the English Wikipedia.
In the media:Indian political editing, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Congressional chelonii The Hindustan Times speculates (September 18) that politicians and their supporters are "sanitizing" their articles in advance of the 2014 Maharashtra State Assembly election. The Times notes the absence of significant controversies in the articles of particular politicians and the presence of heavily promotional language.
Recent research:99.25% of Wikipedia birthdates accurate; focused Wikipedians live longer; merging WordNet, Wikipedia and Wiktionary 0.75% of Wikipedia birthdates are inaccurate, reported Robert Viseur at WikiSym 2014. Those inaccuracies are "low, although higher than the 0.21% observed for the baseline reference sources". Given that biographies represent 15% of English Wikipedia, the third largest category after "arts" and "culture", their accuracy is important.
Traffic report:Wikipedia watches the referendum in Scotland This could be the beginning of a new era for this list. Until now, decisions to remove suspicious content have been largely educated guesswork. This week though, we have a new collaborator who can shine a light on the origins and patterns, sorting once and for all the webwheat from the cyberchaff.
WikiProject report:GAN reviewers take note: competition time A year and a week later, we're with some of the members of WikiProject Good Articles, who wanted to share the news of their upcoming contest within the project, the GA Cup. The aim of this friendly competition, which is held in the same light friendly manner of the WikiCup and the Core Contest, is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed articles at Good article nominations which has been a constant problem for quite a few years for those running the GA process.
Arbitration report:Banning Policy, Gender Gap, and Waldorf education Banning Policy finishes the workshop phase on 23 September. Parties have proposed findings of fact on the topics of the 3RR, the role of Jimbo Wales, and proxying for banned users. A request for arbitration was posted on 20 September about Landmark Worldwide.
Hey i was the person that left that comment that you said thanks for the kind words, anyway i took the advice and help from that document template you left on my page. I think i got it right but can you check and review my first article that i'm working on. I trust you if it really is not worth it you can tell me and i'll try another article. I'm just trying to figure this thing out and contribute! Here's my discussion link for my page. [page] and here is the page itselfX3SR. If you can help thanks if you are busy and can't I truthfully understand. I just had no where to turn to i apologize if this is an intrusion on your time. Thanks either way!
HiUser:Vlolv: Regarding theX3SR article, since it was nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion (AfD), the future of the article will be decided there. That said, the nomination is based upon a perception from the nominator of the band not meeting various criteria atCriteria for musicians and ensembles and not meeting standards oftopic notability on Wikipedia, per the part of the nomination that states, "No coverage found in reliable independent sources."
Try to address the concerns of the nominator at the AfD discussion. The article would benefit from the addition of independent, third-partyreliable sources that providessignificant coverage about the topic to qualify its notability, which are also used toverify information in articles. Also note that the criteria at Criteria for musicians and ensembles can also be used to demonstrate topic notability if the band qualifies under any of them.
Even if the article is deleted, don't be discouraged about contributing to Wikipedia. AfD is part of the checks and balances on Wikipedia, and it's commendable that you would like to contribute toward its improvement.NorthAmerica100009:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, as far as I can see, this AfD should have been closed as "keepPaper Buildings" because that article is the one that was actually nominated for deletion. It wasn't redirected during the course of the AfD, it was moved and rewritten.James500 (talk)12:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Latesttech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.Translations are available.
There are now many more translations for language names.[33]
Software changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf1) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since September 25. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis on September 30, and on all Wikipedias on October 2 (calendar).
Errors from Scribunto (Lua) are now shown on the page. Before, you had to click on "Script error" to see them.[34][35]
You can add an "autovalue" for a field in TemplateData. When users add the template to a page, the value will be added automatically. An example is when a clean-up template shows the date it was added.[36]
If you change a user preference but don't save it, it now asks if you want to save it.[37][38]
The PDF export tool has changed. The new one has better language support but it doesn't offer ZIM and EPUB formats.[39]
JavaScript authors: Many old methods will be removed soon. Please check your scripts and gadgets and replace the old methods by the new ones if needed.[40]
Help me create a Request for Comment asking that Jimmy Wales step down
I want to create a request for comment with some long term members of the Article Rescue Squadron.
This request for comment would argue that the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down.
NorthAmerica100011:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toList of hot beverages may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.
