Wikipedia

User talk:Northamerica1000/Archive 21

< User talk:Northamerica1000
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Northamerica1000 in topic Article
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

The final straw...

Latest comment: 10 years ago40 comments10 people in discussion

Alright, that's it! This is the final straw. I hereby declare my intention to drag you back to WP:RFA (*slaps face with glove*). What say ye? St★lwart111 01:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Stalwart111: Thanks for your support in terms of a potential adminship nomination, which is much appreciated. I need more time to fully consider this proposition, so I'll respond at a later time in this thread with a specific answer. NorthAmerica1000 11:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course - no rush. A nomination may be better coming from someone else (I haven't ever nominated someone at RFA before) with a co-nom but I'm happy to find that person. Take all the time you need and please know I won't be offended if you decline - it has to be the right thing for you. St★lwart111 23:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I just read (well, skimmed) through your first RfA. I'm not sure what to say. I've watched the work you've done at AfD for a while and you seem like you're a reasonable person and you know what you're doing. As far as I'm concerned, that's all it should take to be an admin. Your demonstrated willingness and ability to help out at AfD counts for more in my book than all the silly hypothetical comments from the nay-sayers at RfA who are over-analyzing edit counts and dumb essay answers to equally dumb questions. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, and feel free to contribute more to this discussion if you'd like (see extended discussion below). NorthAmerica1000 10:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Extended discussion

Hi Stalwart111: Prior to proceeding with anything, (which I am still pondering), I would welcome your detailed input regarding my first RfA. During that time I addressed several concerns that were stated there, such as archiving talk page content and adjusting my user pages to a more standardized format. Thereafter, I increased my accuracy in copyvio detection to be extremely accurate and became much, much more involved in deletion aspects of Wikipedia (e.g. closing AfD discussions), which I continue to do. To review additional work I have performed in areas of deletion, check out the links at the very top of this page (Discussion closure log, CSD log, Prod log, XfD log). I have also become much more succinct in commentary within discussions and when performing various closes.

Regarding RfA1, that was then, and this is now. At the time, I didn't plan ahead for it. In the process, I responded to concerns therein, but some considered that “badgering”. In a potential future RfA, I'll limit or even omit any responses outside of the Questions for the candidate section. In some regards, I treated RfA1 as an RfC/U, which was a double edged sword. Some of my comments were met with constructive criticisms that provided valuable input from users, while others were against any candidate commentary. It's a unique situation when a venue about a user limits participation from that very person, but that's how many people feel about it.

Some editors opposed based upon the false notion of “previous accounts” (plural), but I fully divulged my sole previous (singular) account, User:Unitedstates1000 and divulged that I previously edited as an unregistered user. This was confirmed in the General comments section in what appears to have been a check user query, but apparently people didn't see that after voting. I created a new account simply because I like my present user name more than the prior one. It was disappointing to be opposed based upon an offense that wasn't committed.

Regarding my prior work with WP:ARS (which I resigned from in early November 2012), some people consider that project to have problems with canvassing. To address those concerns, while I was a member of the project in January 2012, I personally nominated the project's Rescue template for a TfD discussion (at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13 – Template:Rescue), which resulted in deletion. It's one of the longest TfD discussions I have seen. That discussion provided significant input from many users regarding ARS relative to canvassing. I mention this because contrary to statements at RfA1 of being unversed regarding canvassing policy, I was, and continue to be very extensively knowledgeable of it in entirety.

Regarding the tools themselves, I am skilled, knowledgeable and well-versed regarding all aspects of deletion on Wikipedia, so this would be a significant focus. I routinely pass over AfD discussions with clear and strong consensuses for deletion, because I cannot delete articles. Other areas of participation using the tools would naturally be speedy deletion and prod candidates, as well as TfD, FfD, PuF, CfD, RfD and MfD.

Again, I welcome your detailed input regarding AfD1 and my commentary herein. NorthAmerica1000 09:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think your first RFA was unfairly influenced by the activities of the ARS. Your want to defend them and your involvement (perfectly understandably though it might have been) was seen as badgering. I think the badgering was seen more as a sign of immaturity than disruption - the need to correct the record rather simply standing on that record, come what may. At the time, ARS had a terrible track record of simply allowing users (even SPAs) to post a link to an AFD for "their" article which would almost instantly result in 5-10 zombie-like keep votes. There were a handful of hard-working ARS members who genuinely tried to fix articles in order to save them. It's now mostly an inactive project and so doesn't influence AFD in the same way that it once did (the fact that is sought to influence AFD at all was a problem).
One of the other issues raised was a perceived inability to respond to things succinctly. I think you've improved on that significantly, certainly within the discussions in which I have participated. Again, the lengthy responses to oppose votes probably didn't help that perception.
The AFD stats tool is having issues at the moment but it would seem you have greatly improved your ability to contribute to AFDs in a meaningful way and that your recent contributions have been far more in line with the prevailing "community view" - that is, your opinion matches consensus more often than it once did. I should note that if I were to contribute either a nomination or a co-nomination, I would seek to highlight your excellent work closing AFDs, your improved ability to judge consensus and your capacity to make admin-style closure/relisting decisions and then back them with succinct, policy-based rationale on your talk page (where necessary). The fact is, we regularly disagree at AFD and two of the "ongoing" discussions in the AFD stats log (of 5 or so) are discussions where we have disagreed. I'd point that out too, highlighting that despite our differences of opinion, your thoughtful contributions have impressed me enough to nominate you. Effectively I'm proposing to give admin tools to someone with whom I don't always agree (including the non-admin "no consensus" closure of discussions where I have argued strongly one way or the other).
I have no concerns about the extent of your policy knowledge (something others were concerned about in 2012). My only hesitation would be FFD where I spend little time. There are far more intricate policies there relating to fair use and copyright. I'm not suggesting you don't understand them - but I myself don't understand them well enough to make a judgement about them in any way. You would need to seek the endorsement of others in that regard.
You would probably need a more comprehensive answer to the standard question - have you ever edited under a different username? - to alleviate concerns. Explain the how/why/etc there. Votes of those who still oppose on those grounds without reading that will be discounted.
One thing I would propose to do, prior to a nomination, would be to ping TParis (I won't just yet but he will see this when I do), one of the most vocal oppose voters in your last RFA. I would ask him for his thoughts, with the benefit of two years additional growth and contributions. He's a pretty reasonable guy and I think we could trust him to provide an honest and balanced assessment. It also allows for some "devil's advocate" consideration, if you will.
I hope all of that helps your thought processes. I've hatted this so that it doesn't take over your talk page. St★lwart111 00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the detailed response. To address your notions above, I have provided this point-by-point reply.

  • First of all, I don't care to make ARS a part of a future nomination whatsoever. I resigned my membership from the project to simplify my presence on Wikipedia, due to concerns from other users about the project's potential for canvassing and to avoid being further typecast in a negative light. At the time of my membership, I was one of the members who would actually routinely improve articles by adding reliable sources that provided significant coverage, but unfortunately, others simply go to !vote at AfD sans any article improvements. I had noticed the latter increasingly, which was a significant factor in my resignation. For what it's worth, to address concerns about project canvassing, I also personally added the Project Code of conduct template to the project's rescue list way back on January 22, 2012, the same day I created the list (diff). This is further direct evidence regarding my awareness of, adherence to, and respect of canvassing guidelines, way before RfA1.
In 2014 (mostly in January-March) I added some nominations to the rescue list for articles that I had difficulties finding sources for, in hopes of obtaining assistance, which resulted in varying degrees of responses. I notice lately that the list has been used more in accordance with its intended instruction set. I've moved away from it, though, because I'm still concerned about users that don't improve articles, and instead just go to AfD to !vote. Ultimately, I've moved onward to other endeavors.
  • I continue to keep commentary concise, although in some cases, detailed discussion is appropriate to extrapolate upon various matters. AfD closes can often be kept concise, although some may require a more developed rationale, such as those with complex or long discussions or that are controversial in nature.
  • The last time I viewed my AfD stats, my accuracy rates were in accordance those that are typically expected from Administrators. Upon running a query, AfD stats presently appears to continue having problems at this time.
  • I'm well versed to participate in FfD due to extensive knowledge about Wikipedia's image use and copyright policies (WP:C, WP:CV, WP:REUSE, Creative Commons licensing, GNU licensing). Check out my upload log to view copyrighted images I have uploaded that are used in articles. I am also a significant contributor to Wikimedia Commons (see User uploads and the category Files uploaded by User:Northamerica1000). I'm knowledgeable and well-versed about image use and copyright policies on both websites.
  • I can easily devise a comprehensive answer to any query about my sole previous account should it arise. Denotation of what appears to have been a check user query at RfA1 would be a part of this answer, should the question arise. Overall, it remains very simple, I changed my user name to one I prefer. Prior to that, I edited as an unregistered user.
  • Regarding the involvement of TParis, I hesitate to reply here without pinging that user, but he has stated in the past that he prefers to limit communications between ourselves (diff). After that time, we've had some very limited communication, and he didn't complain when I worked to improve an article he has significantly expanded (Ford Island, e.g. diff, diff, diff, (et al.)). We also had a discussion on his user talk page in late November 2012 regarding aspects of RfA1 (diff, scroll down to see the entire discussion). His initial reply was rather standoffish and unnecessarily scolding, upon which after I explained my rationale more, we had a relatively functional discussion.
His opposition at RfA1 was based upon events that had occurred over 13 months prior to the RfA. I feel that he has already developed a negative opinion about me that appears unlikely to change, in which his initial perception and judgments about me are negative from the start (e.g. late November 2012 discussion). At RfA1, rather than responding to my genuine concerns in his opposition !vote, he responded with an argumentum ad hominem reply that didn't address the content of my commentary whatsoever, stating in part that he preferred it to have been written in a different grammatical person, among other ad hominem arguments. At the time I was disappointed in the lack of any response to my actual, sincere queries. Of note is commentary at his present Administrator review (at Wikipedia:Administrator review/TParis 2), in which a user states on 3 July 2014 that he “... seems to nurse his grudges, and at times his behavior crosses the line into ad hominem gratuitous comments directed at other editors”.
Due to all of the above, I feel that I would not receive an objective assessment from this individual. Notice that I'm not pinging him here or linking to his Administrator review, to respect his desire to limit contact, and I prefer that you do the same herein. Do however you please outside of this talk page. Also of note is that the above is not intended to badmouth the user whatsoever, it's just a detailed reply regarding the last part of your comment above.

Again, thanks very much for your comprehensive reply. Compared to RfA1, which I didn't plan ahead for, it's preferable to cover matters first during this “consideration” period. Again, I am competent per my significant work in areas of deletion, at AfD (including discussion closures, deletion sorting, relisting and discussion contributions), abilities, skills, precision, progress and content contributions. I just don't want to rush into an RfA without having significantly considered everything. NorthAmerica1000 09:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, saw those - good idea. Anna raises a good point and I acknowledge you're probably considering "running the gauntlet again" because I (fairly enthusiastically) urged you to consider it. I said it earlier but please know I'll think no less of you if after all of this you decline to run again. I've suggested it because I think we need more competent admins and your conduct leads me to believe you would make a competent (nay, excellent) admin. You're no glory-seeker or hat-collector and that appeals also. I like the idea of a reluctant candidate; a Cincinnatus if you will.
Your comments with regard to FFD are reassuring - you certainly have a better handle on such things than I.
Understand your reluctance with regard to TP. I'll think about this some more. I think we need a way of specifically addressing some of the strong oppose opinions from the last RFA before trying again and simply hoping for the best. St★lwart111 03:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Stalwart111: Basing a new RfA upon RfA1 would not the most functional way to move forward in terms of a successful RfA, in my opinion. It seems that this would provide an inopportune start for a second RfA, focusing on the past prior to RfA1, rather than my progress and abilities I possess at this time and work I have performed following RfA1, particularly in areas of deletion.
The user we discussed above just doesn't like me (see this discussion, beginning a January 2012 discussion in part with "Overall, I dislike Northamerica1000...", and later replying in argumentum ad hominem stating "Really, that's the best you got? I laugh at you" in response to a comment I made there. Conversely, my replies remained polite and constructive, such as "I don't laugh at such concerns" and "...I don't have any personal problem with you..." There are more examples of this ongoing behavior pattern toward me from this individual available, but hopefully you are seeing the bigger picture at this point. Their involvement won't help my potential for success. So, no thanks, I don't want to involve that user in a future RfA.
It's also likely that in a new RfA, questions would be posted by users about RfA1. After RfA1, I took all of the concerns into strong consideration; some of them were constructive and provided insight for ways to improve, which I have considerably fulfilled. Ultimately, since a considerable focus using the tools would be in areas of deletion, this would be a logical area to base a potential new RfA upon. NorthAmerica1000 08:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Starting a subpage

As you may know, I advocated for a "pre-admin opinion page" , a Wikipedia-space page where potentials could query the community about their chance of success. A good objection was that users can set up their own subpage to ask for input. Consider it. You could even ask for feedback from old objectors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

(ping) User:Anna Frodesiak: I'll keep this in mind. For the time being, I'll just keep the discussion herein. Also thanks for your input on your talk page. NorthAmerica1000 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. And happy to help. And sorry that I bore bad news. And nice work on List of pasta dishes, by the way. You see, this is product that wasn't there a day ago, and if you were an admin, you'd end up going through cats looking for items to delete. That's ghost work. You can't finish your day and feel this sense that the proejct is so much better off for your hours of work. I mean, you do a bit, but nothing like the feeling of after you produce stuff like pasta. That's high-value work. It's what this whole wikishindig is all about. Again, why the heck do you want to be an admin?? What on Earth could be more rewarding than making product like pasta and list of pastries that gets 1k+ hits a day!!! I just don't get it. You can pick admins to do dirty work for ya, and dirty work it is. Tedious! And speedy tagging is exactly like pick all admins. You throw your trash anywhere you like, tag it, and walk. The janitor comes and takes it from there. What could be better? Like VIP deluxe dirty work handlers at your service. And you are the VIP in that relationship. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Anna: Regarding RfA, I have responded below in the Summary section. Thanks very much for your appreciation of List of pastries and List of pasta dishes, and for your work to perform the table conversion within List of pasta dishes. NorthAmerica1000 13:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary

(ping User:Stalwart111, User:RoySmith, User:Anna Frodesiak)
A significant part of the work I have performed on Wikipedia is in areas of deletion, such as closing AfD discussions and performing speedy deletion nominations. I am skilled and knowledgeable in all areas of deletion (AfD, SD, TfD, FfD, PuF, CfD, RfD and MfD). I'm always skimming past AfD discussions with consensuses for deletion because I can't delete articles. The tools would enable me to use my skills to delete articles with consensus for this to occur, in accordance with Wikipedia's Deletion policy. In areas of speedy deletion, my extensive experience in nominations has led to my acquisition of all of the procedures and policies (e.g. Criteria for speedy deletion) upon which it is based. I have the skills to accurately identify articles that should be speedy deleted, which my CSD log clearly demonstrates, so the tools would enable my contributions in deleting those candidates. I have the skills, ability and knowledge to use the tools properly and with absolute precision. For an overview of deletion work I have performed, see my:

 – NorthAmerica1000 12:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
It is tremendous, I appreciate the time you put into these things. A lot of your contributions and style of carrying out these closures can be compared with ArmBrust. So when you are planning for a RfA? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:OccultZone: Thanks for your reply. Presently, AFD Stats is not providing accurate results. Since people at RfA often view these results as a part of formulating an opinion, it is prudent at the very least to wait until AFD Stats is functioning properly. I have contacted the original author of the script on their talk page regarding this matter.
Per the initial query above, I'm also in the process of obtaining more input and seeking nominators/co-nominators. Some participants at RfA may consider self-nominations to possess less significance compared to those written by other users. Also, if you haven't already done so, check out the extended discussion above. NorthAmerica1000 04:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD Statistics for User:Northamerica1000

Standard querys using AFD Stats doesn't provide immediate results for my AfD discussion !votes due to the high number of deletion sorting and relisting activity I have performed in helping to manage the AfD logs and discussions. Custom querys in AfD stats by date are providing accurate results overall. Below is a summary of my AfD Statistics from circa early October 2012 to September 30, 2014.

However, some errors in generation are occurring, in which AfD Stats is listing !voting participation for discussions I only relisted. For example, this AfD stats query is stating that I !voted to keep articles in AfD discussions that I did not !vote or comment in whatsoever. For example, the latter query in this paragraph lists !votes of keep for articles that I only relisted, such as 1 and 2. It may be parsing discussions I have relisted that have !votes in bold directly above the relist template. NorthAmerica1000 05:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As the original developer of that tool, I can guarantee that it is not 100% accurate, and there will be some errors, especially over a long range of time. The tool works on a number of assumptions that aren't always true. For instance, the tool looks for a bolded !vote, and attributes it to the user in the next signature that it finds. If it's attributing a vote to you when all you did was relist the page, that might be because the person who voted directly above your relisting message forgot to sign their post (or signed their post in a strange way that the tool doesn't recognize). Therefore, the tool sees your signature next, and assigns the vote to you.
There really isn't a practical way to make the tool more accurate than it is. However, it is accurate in most cases, as long as you routinely bold your votes, make standard votes like Keep or Delete (as opposed to non-standard votes like Agree or Nuke), and sign your posts. Over a long period of time, the error rate shouldn't be more than a percent or two. Since you do a ton of relists and delsorts, your error rate might be somewhat higher. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 18:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Scottywong: Thanks very much for the reply. Both of the AfD discussions I linked above as examples had users that omitted the date timestamp in their signatures, providing only their user name and talk page link. In a potential future RfA, perhaps this matter regarding AfD Stats could be brought to people's attention in the General comments section. It would be problematic for !votes I didn't cast to be considered as a part of my AfD !voting activity. The incidence rate is likely low, though, with a low probability of stated relisting after a signature lacking a timestamp being a regular occurrence. I will consider adding-in the date to a user's signature when this occurs, to prevent malformed AfD stats for my activity from being generated. NorthAmerica1000 20:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yup, that would do it. Without a timestamp, the tool has no way to know if it is looking at a signature, or if someone has simply linked to User:Northamerica1000 in the middle of their comment. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 21:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm shocked

By how many Afds are not getting discussion. I see you have closed a lot as nc. If you had the tools, how many would you feel comfortable soft deleting? Spartaz Humbug! 16:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Spartaz: Yes, AfD has experienced a noticeable lack of overall input for awhile. Regard soft deletion, rather than a quantification of how many discussions I would feel comfortable performing with this close, this requires a qualitative approach. Closes for no quorum discussions should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and in part, relative to the content of an article. For example, an article with one sentence along the lines of "(Topic) is a (fill-in noun) that is (fill-in adjective, noun, etc.)" which is unsourced would be more likely to be soft deleted versus a developed article with sections, references, etc. However, this is just an example, and other factors can come into play, such as an article having problems with elements of advertising or promotion, close paraphrasing from sources, etc., as well as the extent of said potential problems. NorthAmerica1000 20:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
(Note that I have slightly refactored this thread, moving it from the bottom of this page to the "The final straw..." section of this page, and changed the section header to header3, to keep commentary about a potential RfA all in one place.) NorthAmerica1000 20:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Really NC closes should be done by an admin - maybe we should make it official. If you are interested in being nominated please let me know and I will do some due diligence but I'm already minded that someone who does as much work in AFD as you do should be an admin and I found little to fault in a quick review of your recent closes but for the pressure of AFD its as well if I can review a good proportion of your recent closes for any skeletons. Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Spartaz: Thanks for your input. Regarding a new RfA, it's still in the "consideration" period at this time. I'm aware that at RfA, self nominations may be perceived by some as carrying less significance compared to nominations performed by others, so I appreciate the prospect of your interest in providing a nomination/co-nomination. Regarding non-admins performing no consensus closes, I feel that this should be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than in absolute terms, relative to each overall discussion, the experience of the closer, additional variables such as topics that may be perceived as controversial, and other various factors. To view my AfD discussion closes, check out my Discussion closures log. NorthAmerica1000 21:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I suspect you have seen me express this view enough over the years to know its a sincere position based because the reduced tool set for non-admins limits choices in closing outcomes and because NC is rarely non-controversial. I have reviewed your closes and for this reason I'm suggesting we make this official as you are already performing NC closes at the correct level. You would benefit from have thr ability to soft delete some of those marginal closes. (This is a rare wiki complement from me). Spartaz Humbug! 21:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Spartaz: I don't recall having seen your opinion about no consensus closes prior to here. Regarding RfA, prior to beginning the process, I would likely reduce my workload to focus my time specifically upon the RfA. At that time, I would also contact users above in this discussion who have (in the past and present) offered to nominate/co-nominate. I need some more time before formally moving forward with RfA2. NorthAmerica1000 21:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I got through RfA with a self-nom (although, admittedly it took 2 tries). I abhor the political aspect of RfA, and to me, having someone nominate me for adminship is inherently a political move. It opens the door to people opposing (or supporting) you because they don't like who nominated you. If I was going to pass RfA, I wanted it to be because I had been judged fit for it based on my contributions, history, etc., not because I have on-wiki friends who are influential. Just my 2 cents. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 22:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Must admit I'd never thought of it like that...always taken it as a courtesy-type thing - like being at someone's house for dinner and waiting until they offer seconds before asking..but it makes sense. AfD closes are one thing - the other is content creation - a good article or two can help in this regard....I can't recall if you've done some...thought you had but can't see any on your userpage. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
@User:Scottywong: Thanks for your input, which is greatly appreciated. Obtaining people's perspectives and opinions is quite helpful. @User:Casliber, see my Contributions page to check out articles I have created, as well as templates, files and WikiProjects. NorthAmerica1000 22:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
There are editors that have the view that we should be focussing more on quality than quantity - making a GA shows that you can put your shoulder to the wiki-wheel for this, but more importantly shows that you can negotiate with a reviewer - any edits that show that you cansuccessfully negotiate with others will be a plus at RfA. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Casliber: Thanks for the reply, and for clarifying that you were referring to Good articles. I haven't personally improved any articles to GA status yet, although I'd like to. Regarding negotiation skills, a current example is the discussion occurring on this talk page here, which just began today. Additional DYK contributions I have made (e.g. reviewing) have sometimes involved negotiation and such discourse. NorthAmerica1000 08:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Some folks are unhappy about how DYK is run - being a thorough reviewer helps though, so make sure your reviews are thorough there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

With genuine great respect to Scotty, a nom from Spartaz is not something to miss out on lightly. There's no one on Wikipedia who could do more to increase your chances of passing. He can write a powerful statement and the very fact it's Spartaz who's nominating you would go a long way to allaying unfounded concerns about possible militant inclusionism. (I know you're about as unmilitant as it's possible to be, but you only have to look at your first RfA to see that not all regulars there are especially perceptive.)

Cas is correct that all other things being equal, authoring a GA increases ones chances. But if you waited until you've wrote one, some might think you only bothered out of hunger for adminship. You already have good content creator credentials due to the vast amount of articles you improve to C / B class with good clear writing and nice use of sources. And you already have excellent negotiation skills. I've not been on Wiki much these past few months, but you've been on my watch list for years, and time and time again I saw your friendliness, thoughtfulness and respect for policy and others point of view bring disputes to an amicable conclusion, even when the other party opened the discussion quite critically. Recent example It can easily take over half a year to get a GA, even if you find an article that doesn't need much work, you can wait for months for a review. By that time Spartaz might not be about to provide a nom. I think now would be an excellent time to throw your hat into the ring.

Dont worry too much about your previous RfA hurting your chances. Without wanting to stir up old ghosts by pointing to specific examples, I can think of several candidates who passed easily on a second RfA, and who's first RfA failed with a lot more hostility than yours.

The only reason not to put yourself up for RfA is if you don't want to take the risk of another bad experience. Id estimate you're more likely to pass than fail with a nom from Spartaz over the next few weeks, but there is still a real chance the RfA would tank, and some of the opposers would probably do their best to say hurtful things. None would think the less of you if you didn't run for this reason - it's why hardly anyone puts themselves up for adminship these days. That said my advise is that you go for it. You've got so many great admin qualities, what's most impressive is that your'e exceptionally energetic without being domineering, you're always up for changing your mind when its warranted, which is why you're so great at encouraging collaboration. Make sure you have good answers for the standard questions 1-3, then message Spartaz saying you'd like to run as soon as he's ready, possibly asking if he advises a co nom, in which case Stalwart would be a fine choice. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Feyd for your valuable input, supportive position and kind words. NorthAmerica1000 22:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment

If you run for RfA, the nominator must remember to mention your work at WP:TAFI as it show your abilities to collaborate. And for what its worth, I'd !vote Support if you ran. — NickGibson3900 Talk 02:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:NickGibson3900: Thanks for the input. I hadn't considered this aspect of my editing relative to a potential RfA; much appreciated. NorthAmerica1000 17:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Northamerica1000, Because it is more than seven days since you wrote:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Please help me read again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dao%27s_theorem and final of version Dao's theorem, later you keep or delete Dao's theorem . Thank to You very much. --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a unique discussion occurring there. I may or may not contribute to the discussion there, because I'm presently working on other things. NorthAmerica1000 21:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank to You --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising Genius

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Given your closure of this as "no consensus" in the complete absence of any contributions to the discussion that would help resolve the deletion rationale (no references), I assume you are going to supply those references yourself. I have tried and failed. The weak keep commenter on the AfD tried and failed. Why do you think the subject is still open for debate and why do you think it is acceptable to leave unverifiable and bad articles like this on the Wiki rather than helping clean them up or remove them? If not AfD, what process do you suggest for fixing this problem? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:David Eppstein: In the discussion, User:MichaelQSchmidt stated that the topic meets aspects of a secondary notability guideline, areas within the Other evidence of notability part of Wikipedia:Notability (films). The discussion was relisted two times, with only one !vote, which was MichaelQSchmidt's "weak keep". Due to a lack of further input, the no consensus close with no prejudice against speedy renomination was the most accurate close relative to the overall discussion.
Regarding a suggestion for "fixing this problem", have you considered the possibility of a merge to Allumination FilmWorks, the distributor of the film? This could potentially be performed using this (paywalled) source that was posted in the AfD discussion.
I don't feel, as you stated above, that "it is acceptable to leave unverifiable and bad articles like this on the Wiki rather than helping clean them up or remove them" whatsoever. My close was based upon arguments in the overall AfD discussion. Also, my closure of the discussion indicates the opposite of your sentiment above, "why do you think the subject is still open for debate". With two relistings, your position for deletion and the weak keep !vote for retention, there is clearly no consensus there, although the keep !vote could be considered as not carrying much weight compared to, say, an !vote that provides links to several reliable sources with significant coverage. If an admin were to delete the article per the discussion therein, it could be interpreted as a WP:SUPERVOTE. Hopefully this clarifies the close. Also, since you're an administrator and I am not, if you'd like, I will re-open the discussion, which will allow for someone else to close it. All you have to do is ask. NorthAmerica1000 21:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave re-opening up to your judgement. I don't have any complaints about your work closing AfDs in general and don't think the admin bit gives me any magical insight you wouldn't equally have. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

GOCE October 2014 newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Guild of Copy Editors October 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights:

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ancient foods

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You might want to look at my comment on Category_talk:Ancient_foods. --Macrakis (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have replied at Category talk:Ancient foods. NorthAmerica1000 17:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Incomplete DYK nomination

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Chateaubriand sauce at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

N.b. Nomination withdrawn. The page will eventually archive. NorthAmerica1000 06:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
N.b. The DYK nom template pages apparently don't archive anywhere, they just stay forever. NorthAmerica1000 07:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-43

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. You can read translations.

Recent changes

  • You can test a new system to see math using MathML. Go to your display options and choose "⧼mw math mathml⧽".
  • You can add badges in Wikidata for quality articles and featured lists. [18] [19]

File information cleanup

Problems

  • Developers fixed a security problem. If you use Internet Explorer 6, you won't be able to log in any more. You should use a newer browser. [21]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf4) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since October 16. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 21, and on all Wikipedias from October 23 (calendar).
  • 10% of logged-out readers are getting pages from servers that run the HHVM tool. HHVM should make pages load faster. You can also test it as a Beta Feature. [22]
  • If you add the same parameter twice in a template, it now puts the page in a tracking category. [23] [24]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Article

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

Hi North(Mind if I call you that?) I was wanting to know whether you needed any help on an article? Anything but references, I hate finding refs.Amanda Smalls 14:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Amanda Smalls: I saw your comments at User:Anna Frodesiak's talk page. I'm presently working on:
Also, check out my article collaboration page for additional articles that would benefit from improvements. NorthAmerica1000 14:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I got a big message from another User. I'll check all that out though!Amanda Smalls 14:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
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.

Nomination of List of doughnut shops for deletion

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of doughnut shops is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of doughnut shops (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ice hotel
added a link pointing to The Telegraph
SnowCastle of Kemi
added a link pointing to The Telegraph

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  Fixed. NorthAmerica1000 10:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tech News: 2014-44

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • There was an issue with files from Commons on October 21. You could only see those with names between 140 and 159 characters by visiting Commons itself. [26]
  • There was a problem with cut and paste in VisualEditor in Firefox. It was fixed quickly. [27]
  • There was a problem with editing math in VisualEditor. It was fixed quickly. [28]

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will now come to Wikipedia sites every Wednesday, instead of every Thursday. [29]
  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf5) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since October 23. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 28, and on all Wikipedias from October 29 (calendar).
  • VisualEditor now uses autovalues for templates if they are in TemplateData. [30] [31] [32]
  • VisualEditor's menu items now show their shortcuts beside them. [33]
  • VisualEditor now opens faster when you click "edit". [34]
  • The rules for plurals in translations changed in some languages. Interface translations are currently not being updated from translatewiki.net; this process will start again on November 6. [35]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

05:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Judy Carter books

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. You recently speedy-kept a couple of deletions discussions I had started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stand-up Comedy: The Book and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Message of You. I understand that there are technical problems, especially with attribution, but I have a couple of questions:

1. My nomination was poorly phrased, I should've made clear that I thought the articles should be deleted, and redirects to Judy Carter put in their place. In fact, I had already done that, but I was reverted by the articles' creator. There is no content worth copying over in a merger, the book articles were too promotionally written to be useful. Do we really have to start the whole process over again? Especially for The Message of You this seems needlessly bureaucratic. Renominate them seems like beating a dead horse, but I do think those two articles should be deleted, and I haven't heard any compelling arguments for why they should be kept.

2. You may also want to speedy close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Homo Handbook, since it was exactly the same rational. It's the only one of the three that seems like it might be worth keeping, actually. It's also worth noting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Comedy Bible, which was deleted in spite of its flawed nomination.

Please ping when you respond, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Grayfell: I'll gladly reopen the discussions, but after I do so, you should strike parts of the nominations that are deficient and add in your notions above. Otherwise, someone else may just come along and re-close them as speedy keep again. I will await your response here prior to reopening the discussions. I may look into the third Afd discussion you linked above later. NorthAmerica1000 23:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Great, thank you, I will do so ASAP. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Grayfell:   Done - discussions reopened. NorthAmerica1000 23:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 43, 2014)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Inside an ice hotel in Jukkasjärvi, Sweden
Hello, Northamerica1000.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Ice hotel

Previous selections: Central America • Steak

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Pig cheese!

Latest comment: 10 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion

Yep! The name says it all. Disgusting and unthinkable at once. So, do you think there is some sort of pig milk or pig cheese thing out there to write about? There must be a culture somewhere that does it. Yuck! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Anna Frodesiak: Check out this article from Modern Farmer. The author of this article in The Guardian says it can't be done, but he's incorrect, per the first article. Here's more stuff about pig's milk: BBC article, The Kitchn. These are just articles from an initial search, so there's likely more out there. Hmm, since all female mammals produce milk, I suppose all kinds of bizarre cheeses could be produced. Perhaps someone in the world has made rat cheese! NorthAmerica1000 19:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow. My search engine is awful. I miss Google. I loved http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/milk-pig/. Jesse Hirsch must have been the star of the office when that came out. Okay, I stubbed it because it couldn't really fit as a section anywhere. Pig is broad, includes boars, and there is no "as food" section. There is no Pig (food) article. It can't go into Pork. Also, we have Donkey milk and Camel milk. Now to exapnd it, if possible, for a DYK. Thank you so much for finding those refs. I will seach hard for more. Oh, and elephant cheese would make sense. They eat grass and probably produce a lot. I'd eat elephant cheese, and I think others would too. Trouble is, Indian elephants would comply, but Indians probably would make it. Africans would, but African elephants would not like being milked, and would probably stamp you and your bucket into pancakes in about two seconds.
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, there is Domestic pig#Meat. Maybe that could be changed to Domestic pig#Human uses. Then it could contain a bit about pig skin for footballs, meat for sausages, and milk for people who are disgusting. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Anna Frodesiak: Thanks for creating the new article, which I notice that we have both been working on. A name change for the section Domestic pig#Meat could work out, since pigs milk is used in the preparation of Porcorino cheese. NorthAmerica1000 00:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for working on it!! I'm not sure what you mean about the domestic pig section name change. Why would the cheese mention merit that? Do you mean because then the section could have one more item in it, nameley Porcorino? Anyhow, I'm thinking that pig milk is now too big to fit into the domestic pig article, and is growing. Actually, I may just change that subsection anyhow and mention the milk and pig skin. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 
A bowl of pork rinds in Thailand
User:Anna Frodesiak: The section in the Domestic pig article titled "Meat" should be fine the way it is. (Above you stated, "Hmmm, there is Domestic pig#Meat. Maybe that could be changed to Domestic pig#Human uses"). Regarding pig skin, don't forget about Pork rinds! NorthAmerica1000 01:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Anna Frodesiak: There's also Ciccioli prepared from pig fat, and Chicharrón, a dish made with fried pork rinds. Also see List of pork dishes, an article I created in January of this year. NorthAmerica1000 01:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oops. Too late. Should I change it back? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Anna Frodesiak: I didn't notice that you performed the recent change in the section title. Human uses there works just fine, particularly per your additions there expounding on the topic. I'd just leave it as is. NorthAmerica1000 01:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Lots of folks watch that article. The community can sort it out. :)
I've just asked at IRC if anyone wants to do the DYK. Are you interested? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Anna Frodesiak: The article has not met the 1,500 character minimum yet to qualify for DYK, per DYK rules. Another matter is that per the DYK Supplementary guidelines, every paragraph should have at least one inline citation, which the Healthcare section presently lacks. NorthAmerica1000 01:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
1,500???? I thought it was 150. :) Goes to show how long it's been since my last one. :) Yeah, for now, let's forget about a DYK. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Anna Frodesiak: I forgot to mention that there's a seven day limit for DYK nominations for new articles. So, if you can bring the Pig milk article up to standards (1,500 minimum characters, all paragraphs with citations, etc./et al.) within the next five days, I can formulate a hook and create a DYK nomination. Just a heads up regarding this matter. If not, and the seven day limit passes, then the article has to be expanded to at least five times its length (compared to the length prior to when the expansion is started) in order to be considered for a DYK, or brought to Good article status through a GA review. NorthAmerica1000 11:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I vaguely remember all of that. :) It was just the word count I forgot. I actually have a couple of dozen DYKs so far. I'd say we let this one go. there's no way to bring it up to 1,500. The hits would have been good, though. It would have disgusted around 10k visitors. Not bad. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Northamerica1000/Archive_21&oldid=1251516282"