User talk:Northamerica1000/Archive 64
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User: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 the current talk page. |
| Archive 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
Pal Milkovics
Dear Northamerica1000, thank you for your kind message on my talk page. I would like to ask you your advise on the deletion of the article about Pal Milkovics, which you have re-listed twice for deletion. I read that by Wikipedia it is no harm to have the remark on the article (that it is up for deletion), but it is really not encouraging. I am trying to argue by guidelines against the deletion, and working on reviewing, improving the article but now is already several weeks that my work is up for deletion. Please let me know in your opinion, what should I do to have the process finished (hopefully without deletion), or just go back to the version before of my edit, as I do not want to be the reason the delete this article which is on Wikipedia almost 10 years. Many thanks for your support. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Pikipaki2222: The short answer here is whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards for people. Check out WP:BIO, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. If the subject has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, this will serve to make a case for article retention. If you are able to find such sources, I recommend posting them directly to the deletion discussion. I may not become involved in commentary at the AfD (articles for deletion) discussion. For your reference, I have posted a table of various notability guidelines at the right of this post. North America1000 15:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your supporting answer, North America I just did as you suggested and added the references, in the meantime even the things are further escalating, and some other editor thought that I have some special interest with the person. I just hope this will end anytime soon, as this is really embarrassing. Again thank you for your advises.Pikipaki2222 (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- No need to be embarrassed. You're pretty new to Wikipedia, so just make your points, and in the process you can learn more about notability guidelines. If the article ends up being deleted (which would be performed by an uninvolved administrator) don't be discouraged, and continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. North America1000 06:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
List of Rajput clans of Uttar Pradesh
Hi, can you please stop creating crap like List of Rajput clans of Uttar Pradesh. It is pure original research based on unreliable sources etc. You should know this - you've been around AfD long enough and this seems like an attempt to run round the system. - Sitush (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with your stance. For example, you state that the sources are unreliable, but provide no evidence backing your claims. Also, I created the article as a service to Wikipedia's readers, and for no other reasons. North America1000 05:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Then you need to keep an eye on WT:INB where the issue re: Raj sources has been raised time and again. Also, WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sure. Hey, please stop blanking content in the article. I have restored the lead, per WP:LEAD. North America1000 05:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm also quite concerned about your edit summary here, stating, "start over please - you have copied without attribution". This is entirely false. See the following links and diffs; I always provide copy attribution: link, diff, diff, diff, diff. North America1000 05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Sitush: Out of curiousity, why do you consider all Raj sources to be unreliable? Could you provide some diffs to discussions about this matter, or is this just your personal opinion? North America1000 15:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree abnout my misreading of your first edit summary. Sorry about that. Read James Tod, H. H. Risley, Census of India prior to independence, The People of India. Search RSN. Those are just for starters - I have some notes on one of my subpages but, honestly, this is not my opinion but rather consensus. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is a reason why we don't do these lists. Several reasons, actually. Indeed, some such lists have previously been deleted. If you do not understand the complexities of caste then it is a dodgy area and "do-gooders" often end up causing more, erm, harm than good. They create maintenance nightmares, inconsistences, contradictions and downright (unintentional) false statements. For example, there are multiple entirely different communities that share a similar name and, equally, multiple similar communities that bear different names. Multiply by roughly 4000, add in the drive-by anons, the caste warriors, those who makes claims to vaunted status (such as Rajput) which are not supported by decent sources, etc. Quite a few people here have said over the years that if we were to believe all of the caste warriors etc then everyone in India was royalty and no-one, for example, constructed houses or farmed the land. These lists are incredible timesinks and I can pretty much guarantee you that it'll be me who has to maintain the things. Arbcom sanctions exist, along with 500/30, because of just how messed up the entire topic area has been. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- A recent RSN discussion (there are others, involving other people but with the same outcome) is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable.3F. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
"speedy keep"
You recently closed the AfD discussion for Robert Battle (basketball) with a reason of "speedy keep." While I don't disagree with that general term, when I read WP:WITHDRAWN, it states that "A "speedy keep" outcome is appropriate when the nomination unquestionably is an attempt to vandalize or to otherwise create disruption." And lists a number of reasons that do not apply to this discussion. The nomination was in good faith and was withdrawn based on sources added after the AfD had started. I would like assurance that the "speedy keep" definition is broader than is listed (otherwise in my view the reason should be "withdrawn by nominator"). If there are reasons that "speedy keep" can be used beyond clear disruption, then my suggestion would be that WP:WITHDRAWN be modified to express this. Thanks for reading. Rikster2 (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Rikster2: Check out WP:SK#1, a deletion guideline page, where it states, "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected" (italic emphasis mine). You withdrew and nobody else opined for deletion, so the close was qualified as speedy keep. North America1000 13:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, at WP:WITHDRAWN, it states, "If the nominator appears to have genuinely changed their mind due to other views expressed, the discussion should not be considered withdrawn. Instead, consider whether to use any of the early closures below." (italic emphasis mine). Per all of this relative to the discourse at the deletion discussion, I view speedy keep as a more accurate closure rationale. North America1000 13:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Except that I didn't change my mind based on views expressed in the discussion, I changed my mind based on sources added to the article. Two people opined on the discussion, one added sources and one had an argument that frankly was incorrect (that the subject met an SSG that it did not). Look, so long as you can assure me there is no negative inferred about me by use of "speedy keep," then fine. But that is NOT how the guidance reads, which is why I recommend changing it if it is not accurate. I did a WP:BEFORE search prior to nominating and I rightly withdrew the nomination based on changes to the article (not because I was trying to cause disruption all along), which saved community and admin time. What I don't want is someday to get brought up on ANI and somebody points to an AfD closed as "speedy keep" as evidence of wrongdoing because that's the only set of scenarios currently listed under that reason. If that assurance can't be made then I respectfully would ask it be closed as a generic "keep" instead. If it isn't necessarily a negative reflection, then WP:WITHDRAWN needs to be changed to reflect this. Rikster2 (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Rikster2: Thanks for your personal input regarding this matter. I have changed the close at the deletion discussion and on the Old AfD multi template at the article's talk page to withdrawn (diffs: [1], [2]), per your detailed explanation here, which corresponds with WP:WITHDRAWN. Also, just so you know, no negative connotations were intended to be inferred toward you with the initial close whatsoever. Thanks again for providing the input. North America1000 15:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Except that I didn't change my mind based on views expressed in the discussion, I changed my mind based on sources added to the article. Two people opined on the discussion, one added sources and one had an argument that frankly was incorrect (that the subject met an SSG that it did not). Look, so long as you can assure me there is no negative inferred about me by use of "speedy keep," then fine. But that is NOT how the guidance reads, which is why I recommend changing it if it is not accurate. I did a WP:BEFORE search prior to nominating and I rightly withdrew the nomination based on changes to the article (not because I was trying to cause disruption all along), which saved community and admin time. What I don't want is someday to get brought up on ANI and somebody points to an AfD closed as "speedy keep" as evidence of wrongdoing because that's the only set of scenarios currently listed under that reason. If that assurance can't be made then I respectfully would ask it be closed as a generic "keep" instead. If it isn't necessarily a negative reflection, then WP:WITHDRAWN needs to be changed to reflect this. Rikster2 (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- If your wiki wants numerical sorting in categories you can request it after a community decision. See how to request it. [3]
- When you edit text and mention a new username they are notified if you add your signature. Before this only happened under certain conditions. [4]
- Users are notified if they are mentioned in a section where you add your own signature even if you edit more than one section. Before, users were not notified if you edited more than one section in one edit. [5]
Problems
- The MediaWiki version that was supposed to come to the wikis two weeks ago was put on hold again because of new problems. The MediaWiki version after it is now on all wikis. [6][7]
Changes this week
- There will be no new MediaWiki version this week. [8]
Meetings
- You can join the next office hour with the Wikidata team. The meeting will be on September 27 at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Abandoned tools on Tool Labs could be taken over by other developers. There is a new discussion on Meta about this. It will be discussed until 12 October and then voted on. [9]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 September 2016
- News and notes: Wikipedia Education Program case study published; and a longtime Wikimedian has made his final edit
- In the media: Wikipedia in the news
- Featured content: Three weeks in the land of featured content
- Arbitration report: Arbcom looking for new checkusers and oversight appointees while another case opens
- Traffic report: From Gene Wilder to JonBenét
- Technology report: Category sorting and template parameters
Relisting time stamps at MfD
I made a template to aid relisting at MfD, {{Mfdrts}} (i.e. miscellany for deletion relist[ing] time stamp), due to the bot that manages the page making it necessary to place something along these lines under the {{pagelinks}} template (as you well know). Unless there is already a template of this nature or a better way of doing this (e.g. a script), of which I'm unaware, you may find this of interest. I'm also considering writing a guide page similar to Template:RfD relisted for MfD, again, unless one exists that I missed. I noticed that you often relist discussions at MfD (I mirrored your way of doing it to figure out how) and thought that you might have some insight. Best Regards,— Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Godsy: Good idea, and thanks for taking the initiative to create this. This should help out to make relisting more streamlined. North America1000 12:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
|
As an expression of gratitude—and much in the spirit of my own article—I present to you a dessert staple of one of the most dominant ethnic groups of my region, which also happens to be one of my favorites. Thanks so much for your incredible work on the hot link (sausage) page and the nomination! I'm dumbfounded by all the sources you dug up. I was riding on the hope that someone had put the work into documenting it (hopefully Alan Lomax field recordings-style, being the piece of American culinary heritage that it is), but I just couldn't locate much, even in a university library system. Truly honored to have a Wikipedia icon make the article explode and give it some momentum!
And with that beer, I say cheers! 156ableitem (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC) |
- @156ableitem: Thanks for taking the initiative to create the article. It was surprising that Hot link (sausage) was not already in place. Regarding source searches, the {{Find sources}} template provides lots of options; check out the examples below. If you're interested in researching it, I know from this source that Pittsburg Hot Link Packers, Inc. in Pittsburg, Texas is a producer. In 1983, they were churning out 12,000 pounds of hot links per week. I added this to the article, but additional information about the company could be used to expand the article. North America1000 12:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2016)
 Albrecht Dürer, famous German painter of the German Renaissance.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Brain damage • Education in Bangladesh Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list/Archive 2 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list/Archive 2. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list/Archive 2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mc Keezy K listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mc Keezy K. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mc Keezy K redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 October. It will be on all wikis from 6 October (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 4 October at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- Tidy will be replaced. Instead the HTML 5 parsing algorithm will be used to clean up bad HTML in wikitext. This would cause problems on a number of wikis. They need to be fixed first. [10]
<slippymap>will not work on Wikivoyage after 24 October. You should use<mapframe>instead. If you need help to fix this before 24 October you should ask for it as soon as possible. [11]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Movebubble, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Hello, Northamerica1000. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
- Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
- A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
hmm
thanks for your edit - I fail to see how a sub-oceanic geographic feature can elicit a photos please tag :( JarrahTree 09:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- @JarrahTree: Which article are you referring to? North America1000 09:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southeast_Indian_Ridge - JarrahTree 09:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- @JarrahTree: I added a {{Friendly search suggestions}} template (diff), not an image requested one. North America1000 09:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- fair enough - my reading of the diff - you didnt remove the photo request - hahahah - underwater ridge photo requests ?? JarrahTree 09:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- @JarrahTree: Yep, no photo request was added. FYI, deep sea images do exist in the world, though. For example, check out this National Geographic gallery. See also Underwater photography. North America1000 10:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- come to think of it there a large amount of cc mages from NASA on commons, suppose the same could be expected for sub mariner territory JarrahTree 10:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- @JarrahTree: Yep, no photo request was added. FYI, deep sea images do exist in the world, though. For example, check out this National Geographic gallery. See also Underwater photography. North America1000 10:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
September 2016
Hi Northamerica1000! I have decided to remove that content from Lega Basket Serie A because that is a wrong information about the Italian League. The new main sponsor will be decided soon, but it will be not Kia, as you can read in this interview to Federico Zurleni (CEO of Lega Basket). (http://www.sportando.com/it/italia/serie-a/212390/federico-zurleni-interrompiamo-l-avvitamento-verso-il-basso-del-basket-italiano.html) The interview is in Italian. He said that Kia had expressed interest to became the new main sponsor, but actually nothing has been done. 20WashingtonPaul (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @20WashingtonPaul: The reason I reverted your change is because you removed content without leaving any edit summary explaining the changes. Please be sure to use edit summaries when removing or changing content, which will prevent misunderstandings.
- When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
- The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history. Edit summary content is visible in:
Visual Arts Collective Relisting
I hereby thank you for relisting the discussion for deletion regarding the Visual Arts Collective. Not only does this discussion, I think, deserve a wider ambit, the constitutional and artistic issues in play certainly deserve a place on Wikipedia. kencf0618 (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Question regarding creating an RfC about AfD's notability standards
Hello. I'm sure you're aware of how contentious certain AfD discussions can get, particularly involving any AfD that user:SwisterTwister is involved in. I believe the contentiousness stems, at the root, from a fundamental disagreement on what the criteria is for determining if a particular subject is notable or not, and I was wondering if an RfC on the subject might be helpful for everyone. The trouble is, I don't really know how to go about creating an RfC, and was wondering if, A) You agree that an RfC on notability requirements (regarding ST's favorite phrase "churnalism", regarding the validity of interviews, and regarding positive news articles on commercial topics in general) would be useful to reduce hostility and contentiousness in AfD, and B) If you'd be willing to help me create such an RfC?
Pinging user:SwisterTwister because I'm not trying to canvass against him or anything, I just want a larger forum that this major disagreement on notability requirements can be hashed out. Fieari (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Fieari: Regarding creating a Request for comment, check out WP:RFC and this section of the page. I am going to bow out of becoming involved in any of this, because 1) I don't view an RfC as warranted, and 2) I'm not interested in spending my time analyzing this user's edits and statements, which would be necessary to create an RfC. Also, at some recent AfD discussions I have participated in, claims by various users of sources all automatically being public relations content as some sort of default has been refuted at times within the respective discussions. However, sometimes sources are pr, so in my opinion it's best to analyze the sources on a case-by-case basis relative to each article nominated for deletion. North America1000 01:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Peppersoup
On 26 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Peppersoup, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that peppersoup is considered a delicacy in Western Africa, where some believe it has medicinal qualities? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peppersoup. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Peppersoup), and it may be added to the 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 the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi there. I was reading the article and was wondering if it would qualify as a comfort food? I'm basing that question off the "feel good" comment in-article. If so, a link to that might be appropriate. Even better, it would be nice to have even a single African example listed at the other article. If not, then never mind my rambling. :) Matt Deres (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Matt Deres: I'd be okay with including this in the article, but only if a reliable source can be found that verifies peppersoup as a comfort food. Otherwise, such mention could be original research. North America1000 21:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Hot link (sausage)
On 29 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hot link (sausage), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Texas, the hot link sausage is usually prepared using beef, while in Chicago, pork is typically used? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hot link (sausage). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hot link (sausage)), and it may be added to the 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 the Did you know talk page.
Reading is fun!
|
Reading Barnstar |
| For not only knowing how to read (yay!), but actually doing it. And seriously, for keeping good humor and integrity in the face of undeserved slams. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC) |
-------------------------------------------------
Cheers, North America1000 07:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Northamerica1000, will you be returning to this nomination now that the issues you raised have been dealt with (according to the reply on the template), or should a new reviewer be found? Please let me know here, if you aren't planning to reply there. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @BlueMoonset: I actually haven't provided a review for the nomination; I found a problem, which appears to have been resolved per the discussion there. I may not perform a review for this submission, so I advise contacting the initial reviewer, EricEnfermero, to see if they will approve it. North America1000 02:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- N.b. The hook was promoted to prep (by another user). North America1000 06:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2016)
Hello, Northamerica1000.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: List of German painters • Brain damage Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
A kitten for you!
This seemingly innocent kitten is a budding churnalist, watch out!
Safehaven86 (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Safehaven86: Thanks for the churnalist kitten. Check out WP:CHURNALISM. North America1000 15:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oh wow, that is great! Thanks for writing that. I had half a mind to write something like this myself, but the other half of my mind was too lazy :) Safehaven86 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Safehaven86: I didn't write it, another user did. I simply created the essay page via copying, and performed some minor copy edits and additions. Copy attribution is provided at Wikipedia talk:CHURNALISM. North America1000 16:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Well thanks for bringing this essay to my attention. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Safehaven86: You're welcome. Thanks again for the cutest kitten ever, and have fun! North America1000 16:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Well thanks for bringing this essay to my attention. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- You can show Special:RecentChanges on a page by using
{{Special:RecentChanges}}. You can now use tag filters by using{{Special:RecentChanges/tagfilter=tagname}}. [12] - The notification badge is coloured if you have notifications. When you check the notification the badge will now turn grey on all wikis instead of just the local one. [13]
- Colours used in the Wikimedia wikis' main interface changed slightly. This is to make them easier to see for readers and editors with reduced eyesight. [14]
Changes this week
- Hidden HTML comments will be more visible when you edit with the visual editor.
<!-- You write hidden HTML comments like this. -->[15] - The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 October. It will be on all wikis from 13 October (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 11 October at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
- You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topics this week is CREDITS files. The meeting will be on 12 October at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- Language converter syntax will soon no longer work inside external links. Wikitext like
http://-{zh-cn:foo.com; zh-hk:bar.com; zh-tw:baz.com}-must be replaced. You will have to write-{zh-cn: http://foo.com ; zh-hk: http://bar.com ; zh-tw:http://baz.com }-instead. This only affects languages with Language Converter enabled. Examples of such languages are Chinese and Serbian. [16]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
20:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Food and drink Newsletter: October 2016
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Project News
ReaLemon Carrot One new GA nomination: The Restaurant Marco Pierre White | start review) by Miyagawa. Some do's to do..
Help us out by...
Article alerts |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Food and drink articles by quality and importance
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Having participated in it, I'm aware of the recent AfD. There are extenuating circumstances casting appreciable doubt on notability (coupled with premature AfD close) that have been voiced by myself, as well as 2 other eds (one of whom was on the "keep" side of that debate) to the closing admin, who never responded. There is a short summary of this issue on the talk page. If you were not aware of this and are only removing the notability tag procedurally, would you please consider restoring it? The alternative would be to re-open or start a fresh AfD, and, because the main source now appears to lack legitimacy, it would likely end in delete. The notability tag is there to allow some time for other sources to be found. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC).
- @Agricola44: Thanks for providing the context. In summary, you opined to delete at the AfD discussion, and on the article talk page you stated your concerns about the source in question, and on the talk page SlimVirgin has changed their mind regarding their keep !vote at the AfD. On Michig's talk page, Lemongirl942 who !voted to delete provided input there. I hesitate to restore the notability template because this goes against the grain of all of the keep !voters at the discussion, essentially downplaying their opinions regarding the subject's notability. I recommend notifying all participants at the AfD discussion about the discussion occurring on the talk page about the source in question. In this manner, a more thorough consensus regarding the source may be achievable. North America1000 22:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- To me, the burden really seems to be the on the other side. AfD was closed only 15 minutes after the main source on which notability was based was basically found to be the result of "fanpage" public input. It seems clear that that one is disqualified, now leaving only a single, questionable source in which Buckingham's name appears in a list of "top doctors" compiled by a journalist with no medical training...seems to be a textbook argument for notability tag, especially since the very status of those "keeps" is now doubtful. Indeed, I see such a tag as an advertisement for eds to find more sources. In other words, the notability tag is entirely procedural in this case. I would propose that it be restored on this basis, though I would certainly be glad to notify the participating editors. What say you? Agricola44 (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC).
- @Agricola44: You know what, upon further consideration, as a procedural matter, the tag should be all right after all. Yes, the tag was added after the discussion was closed, and is based upon the the questionable nature of the source, which did not receive adequate input in the discussion. I have reverted my own edit, restoring the notability template. Yes, I recommend contacting users who participated in the discussion, in hopes to obtain their input at the talk page discussion. North America1000 05:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- To me, the burden really seems to be the on the other side. AfD was closed only 15 minutes after the main source on which notability was based was basically found to be the result of "fanpage" public input. It seems clear that that one is disqualified, now leaving only a single, questionable source in which Buckingham's name appears in a list of "top doctors" compiled by a journalist with no medical training...seems to be a textbook argument for notability tag, especially since the very status of those "keeps" is now doubtful. Indeed, I see such a tag as an advertisement for eds to find more sources. In other words, the notability tag is entirely procedural in this case. I would propose that it be restored on this basis, though I would certainly be glad to notify the participating editors. What say you? Agricola44 (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC).
- Hmm...I was the closing admin and I did respond - here. And the AfD ran for over 7 days. My recommendation would be as NA1k has suggested to try to reach consensus on that source with the other editors involved, and if there is agreement that it isn't acceptable (and if no other sources come to light) start a new AfD. --Michig (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but I think the point is that the AfD was closed 15 minutes after the main source was called into serious doubt. The objection of several editors was that it would have been better, and indeed quite appropriate to extend the discussion. However, given the current state of affairs, would it not be better to give some time to find more sources (with the notability tag)? Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Michig, so they see this, and because they were the closer of the AfD discussion. North America1000 20:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 41, 2016)
 A spelling bee at Jhenidah Cadet College in Bangladesh
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Math rock • List of German painters Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 04:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
A note about confirmation bias
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for edits on Zeek Wikipedia article.
The article has come a long way thanks to you Ymd2004 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
- @Ymd2004: Thanks for the star. I hesitate to continue to work on the Zeek article, since there's still a possibility that it could be deleted. If its retained, perhaps I'll work on it some more. North America1000 19:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- @North America:Your edits are evidence of true merit. Ymd2004 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Reminder: taste testings
A reminder, WP:SFT is backlogged, and could use some help. ;) -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 October 2016
- News and notes: Fundraising, flora and fauna
- Discussion report: Cultivating leadership: Wikimedia Foundation seeks input
- Technology report: Upcoming tech projects for 2017
- Featured content: Variety is the spice of life
- Traffic report: Debates and escapes
- Recent research: A 2011 study resurfaces in a media report
A note
I'm sorry you've become the victim of multiple baseless WP:ASPERSIONS. It is frankly bizarre. When others are quick to assume bad faith and impugn the motives of their peers, it says more about them than it does about you. I've only seen you do honest and constructive work and helpful research and you don't deserve to be attacked. Next time someone casts shade your way, I will be tempted to tell them to file an ANI. Obviously, no one will because there is literally nothing to report. Oh well, it's easier to fling salty complaints at AFD than actually improve articles. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Safehaven86: Unfortunately, AfD can be a hostile place at times. Such negative comments do not support arguments for deletion, and also don't address the sources/rationales provided about the actual topic at hand. I simply remain calm and focus on the article content/topic being discussed. I don't mind constructive criticism, but none was provided. Also, I'm sure you're joking, but please don't suggest that users file baseless ANI reports as you suggested above; ANI has enough problems already. Also, do what I do and take fluffy bunny's advice, and check out these cool links to interesting Wikipedia content below.
- Yes, totally tongue-in-cheek about the ANI suggestion, haha. I like the pages you've linked to, many of which I'd never seen before. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- There is a new newsletter from the Collaboration team at the Wikimedia Foundation. It will have more details about for example Flow and notifications. You can read the first issue.
Problems
- Some users got a warning about Wikipedia's security certificate last week. This was because of a problem GlobalSign had. This has now been fixed. Only a small number of users got the warning. [17]
- Editors couldn't edit semi-protected pages in the Wikipedia app for Android. This has now been fixed in the beta version. [18]
Changes this week
- There will be no new MediaWiki version this week. [19]
Future changes
- The Editing Department are working on a new wikitext editor. It will have tools that are in the visual editor but not in the wikitext editor today. You can read more about this. This is an early plan and things can change. The old wikitext editor will still exist.
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 42, 2016)
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Spelling bee • Math rock Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Thanks for your help!
Hi Northamerica1000. Thanks so much for alerting me (via my talk page) about the proposed deletions for Brit + Co and Brit Morin, and for weighing in on the proposed deletion for Invoca. The same editor who wants to delete those articles has also placed PROD tags on DogVacay, Aaron Hirschhorn, and WebPT, which I either contributed to or created. If you have a moment I would appreciate your suggestions on those articles, re: should they be deleted? I feel like they could be improved but shouldn't be deleted without at least a discussion/community consensus. Thank you again for your help. JNorman704 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @JNorman704: I am of the opinion that it is fair to notify an article creator when an article they created is nominated for deletion. WP:TWINKLE automatically performs this, but some users don't use Twinkle. I may not contribute to the recently prodded articles you have posted here. However, if you feel that deletion of these articles may be opposed by other users, you are allowed to decline them yourself. For more information, check out WP:DEPROD. If you choose to deprod, I highly recommend posting an edit summary that provides a rationale which addresses concerns stated in the prod. Also, per my personal opinion, consider abandoning paid editing in entirety. North America1000 16:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks for your help and opinion. I see your point about paid edits. It's a headache. JNorman704 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Reopen AfD discussions
Could you please consider a goodwill request from me to reopen the four AfD discussions (nominated by me)—1, 2, 3, 4—that you've recently closed with result as "no consensus"? Actually these articles are to speedy deleted, but reverted. They can be deleted per WP:NOT. Let us wait for another in the hope of some participation. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I recommend simply starting new discussions for each discussion, because each one was closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. You can also consider bundling the articles into one discussion, since they are topically related. I hesitate to re-open and then relist these discussions, because sometimes users complain about excessive relisting, as has occurred here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion § Re-listing. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. North America1000 08:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- N.b. Some of these articles were subsequently renominated for deletion by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khar clan (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khatarmal (2nd nomination)). North America1000 07:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
ANI seems a waste of time these days
I sympathise with your recent post at ANI, but it just seems impossible to get anything done there unless it's so blatant that an editor would have been blocked without being taken there. As a means of notifying (other) admins of incidents that need dealing with it's totally ineffective and just seems to attract people (often non-admins) who want to argue for the sakes of it, derail discussion, and stop anything from happening. I can't really suggest a better place to raise concerns, it's just where the project is at the moment, and sadly I don't see it changing anytime soon. --Michig (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with this, @Michig: You also made a good point here. There is a push right now to disqualify all coverage of businesses as "PR" or "advertising." No one with this opinion has shared what non-"PR" coverage would look like (it doesn't seem to exist), which seems to mean Wikipedia can reasonably cover approximately zero businesses. Even if it's true that 100% of business journalism is useless "churnalism" nowadays, our policies aren't up to speed with that. If editors really think all business coverage is terrible and should be verboten, they should make a push to amend our WP:RS policies. Other themes at AFD are that if there is any suspicion that COI editing has occurred at any time in an article's history, regardless of notability of the subject, the article should be deleted as some sort of punishment or warning to potential COI editors. I see no basis in policy for this. Something is either notable or it's not, and that has nothing to do with whether COI editing has occurred. Moreover, COI editors are certainly not going to stop creating and editing articles because sometimes articles get deleted. Finally, there is a group of folks who think that if a company's representative is quoted in an article, that the coverage is PR or not independent. That's just not true. It's good journalistic practice to seek comment from the subjects of your reporting. There is an obvious difference between a press release and a by-lined, reported piece in an outlet with editorial oversight. Anyway, there's something odd going on at AFD where people seem to be trying to make policy there, as if a consensus of editors active at AFD can override Wikipedia's actual policies. Not sure what to do about that. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- And how could I forgot the idea that if an article is seen as "promotional" in any way, it should be deleted regardless of notability. Ahem, ahem, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Michig and Safehaven86: I take no pleasure in filing ANI reports, but sometimes it is necessary. Well, at least the ANI discussion received a formal close. North America1000 23:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- And how could I forgot the idea that if an article is seen as "promotional" in any way, it should be deleted regardless of notability. Ahem, ahem, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:PizzaRev logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:PizzaRev logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Nomination for merging of Template:Semi-wikibreak (simple)
Template:Semi-wikibreak (simple) has been nominated for merging with Template:Semi-wikibreak. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: Thanks for the notification. North America1000 16:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Cheese slaw
On 6 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cheese slaw, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that cheese slaw is sometimes used as a topping for hot dogs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cheese slaw. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cheese slaw), and it may be added to the 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 the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)1!
- Congratulations! This made WP:DYKSTATS#Non-lead hooks with at least 15,000 views! Yoninah (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Thanks for the notice; wow, this was surprising to hear. North America1000 18:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
for wasting my time. When setting up a rather complex AfD, I expect people to read it and some form of discussion, and not to close the AfD while keeping the article undeleted with no given reason. Savh tell me 23:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Savh: The discussion went through two full relistings with absolutely no input. Note that I closed the discussion with no prejudice against speedy renomination, so you can simply renominate it. I hesitate to re-open and then relist the discussion, because sometimes users complain about excessive relisting, as has occurred here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion § Re-listing. North America1000 23:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
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
- The abuse filters had a problem and caught too many edits. This has now been fixed. [20]
Changes this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from October 25. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from October 26. It will be on all wikis from October 27 (calendar).
- The "Search" text in the search box will show the name of the project. For example, on Wikipedia it will say "Search Wikipedia". [21]
- About a dozen wikis now have numerical sorting in categories. If your wiki wants numerical sorting in categories you can ask for it. [22]
- Some wikis that want numerical sorting in categories can also ask to use UCA to sort categories. The biggest difference is that characters with diacritics will be sorted together. For example, for most languages Ä will be sorted with A instead of at the end of the alphabet. This is not true for languages that have Ä as a character in their alphabet. Wikis that already use UCA are listed on Meta. Languages that can use UCA are listed on MediaWiki.org. You can test it.
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
17:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 43, 2016)
 The attic at a factory
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Noise • Spelling bee Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|