User talk:Northamerica1000/Archive 56

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.

On 3 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dodge Cove, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 96% of Dodge Cove residents surveyed opposed construction of a proposed liquefied natural gas facility there? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dodge Cove. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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) 12:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

On 3 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pizza cheese, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the stretchiness and melting characteristics of pizza cheese can be improved using a blend of vetch milk and cow's milk in its preparation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pizza cheese. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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) 12:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

		The Food and Drink Barnstar
		Your consistent curation of our coverage of comestibles like cheese is commendable. Kudos! Andrew D. (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: Thank you kindly. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

On 4 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mr. T Cereal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a catchphrase for Mr. T Cereal was "I pity the fool who don't eat my cereal"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mr. T Cereal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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) 00:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello.

I stumbled across an old template you made at Template:Wikiportal:Agronomy/Opentask. I noticed that this Wikiportal was moved over to Portal:Agriculture and Agronomy. I was wondering if this template should be moved over to the agriculture portal or deleted.

Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• @MrLinkinPark333: I have merged content that is pertinent at this time to Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture/to do, and redirected the page to that page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

not sure where to put this, still learning, but many thanks for your help. cheers! :)Panglossx (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the merger of High school into Secondary school, which you just helped cleaning up, seems to be particularly ill-judged, not by you but – unanimous or not – by the participants of that debate. Note that I have just proposed undoing that merger, see Talk:Secondary school#Revert merger of Secondary school and High school. Feel free to join into the discussion. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@PanchoS: Thanks for the notification. I noticed the merge when patrolling recent changes, so I closed the merge discussion because the merge had already occurred and moved the talk page to the new title accordingly. I may or may not contribute to the new discussion you have initiated there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@PanchoS: I just moved the talk page back to Talk:High school. I erred and moved the page to an incorrect title "Talk:High School" (with a capital letter "S" on "school"). Per the discussion you initiated, it seems best to just leave the talk pages separate at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

18:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash. Could you please help finish the DYK nomination? Thanks! Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 06:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Grammarxxx: I have performed some contributions to the article, so it's best for another user to provide the review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Beurre Maître d'Hôtel you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Beurre Maître d'Hôtel for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: hi there - just a quick question as to why you decided to delete the article about Gerald Loxley? L'honorable (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@L'honorable: Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Loxley was for deletion of the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Northamerica1000 for your prompt reply - my apologies but I missed how consensus was reached. I have requested permission from HMG to release some info about Major Loxley, but is this now pointless? L'honorable (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@L'honorable: What does "HMG" stand for? Whatever it stands for, I'm not sure how receiving some sort of permission from an entity will confer to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Her Majesty's Government - much of the info about Loxley is classified, hence I have not wished to breach guidelines set by the UK Govt for obvious reasons! L'honorable (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
PS. Loxley was very notable, being a pioneer of aviation in WWI, and would undoubtedly be of interest to other readers if they had the chance to read about him. Happy to discuss further as need be...

@L'honorable: I hesitate to go against consensus at the discussion, despite that the discussion had rather limited participation. At this point, it's best to wait until you receive word from the Government of the United Kingdom about whether or not such information will be made available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

OK Northamerica1000 but unless my understanding of Wikipedia is misconceived, there are many less deserving candidates who are included on its pages & its deletion not only precludes others adding to it but provides no incentive for governmental permission to be granted (given that I asked for it with respect to Wiki) - qv. http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9750072 (www.nationalarchives.gov.uk - not many people have write-ups about them in the National Archives). Are you sure this article deserves being deleted? L'honorable (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@L'honorable: Per limited participation at the deletion discussion, and since people may not have seen the link you provided in the discussion after they !voted, I can re-open the discussion and relist it at the present AfD log page if you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: thanks for doing this - hopefully the RAF Museum's info will be made available as too that held by the Imperial War Museum. L'honorable (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@L'honorable: I have restored the article and relisted the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 13. If you make any request for additional information about the subject from the Government of the United Kingdom in order to further qualify the subject's notability, I suggest for you to denote this at the discussion page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again Northamerica1000 & let's keep in touch about this. L'honorable (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@L'honorable: Please do not change other user's comments as you did here, which can be misleading and change the intent of people's words. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: totally agree - looking forward to being in touch again. L'honorable (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have responded to the archive issue on the AfD page. I am guessing that neither of you are UK citizens, or at least are unfamiliar with our armed forces' systems of record keeping. These archives are for the most part full of the most dreary details for every serviceman ever recruited, and anything of real notability will have long been in the public domain. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: Thanks for the notice. I also noticed your comment at the AfD discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000 and Steelpillow: Steelpillow's comments are highly subjective and incorrect on several counts. Is this how so-called Wiki consensus works? L'honorable (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
PS. this is not worth getting into a massive bust up over so if you want to delete the article do so, but I had thought Wiki was intended to be a source of enlightenment.

@L'honorable: Part of the problem is that you changed an !vote in the discussion which made it seem that more users opined for delete than actually did so (diff). Regarding consensus on Wikipedia, check out WP:CONSENSUS. Regarding !votes at Articles for deletion discussions, check out !vote, WP:NOTVOTE and the overall essay at Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.

Regarding the notability of subjects on Wikipedia, see part of the guideline page for biographical articles at WP:BASIC, and also WP:SOLDIER, which is part of an essay page. Essentially, what is needed is proof that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Regarding awards the subject has received and their overall contributions to society, and how this can confer notability, see WP:ANYBIO. Hope this helps out. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick update to reflect new claims made by L'honorable (talk · contribs): I accept that in exceptional cases, such as highly secret work, there may be valuable unpublished material in some archives. But it remains unpublished and therefore cannot be used by Wikipedia. The allegations that I am biased against Loxley because I am a Lizard in steelpillow's body or something may of course be taken as you find them. On the matter of WP:CONSENSUS, I am sure you are aware that "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" and not through a simple head count. The burden of proof lies with the article defender to provide reliable sources in support of their claims. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, friend.I hope you woukd understand.You just revised one of my recent edit in Honour killing in Pakistan.Actually in the section "Hudood Ordinance" I found no relevance to the subject.You may read the section yourself.Section "1990 Qisas and Diyat Ordinance" is totally relevant with the subject matter Friend there is no question on sourcing.No matter if it has good sources or not.Just assume, for example, if I Add something about zoo in the article of Obama with all sources will it be accepted their?Ejaz92 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

user:177.142.93.135 keeps reverting General ization's edits. You better block him. 2602:306:3357:BA0:5CAA:B9AF:7C32:F625 (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Gilliam blocked 177.142.0.0/17 as a range block. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Beurre Maître d'Hôtel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

On 9 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Testaroli, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that testaroli pasta (pictured) dates back to ancient history, originating from the Etruscan civilization of Italy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Testaroli. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

A typical Swedish school lunch. Hello, Northamerica1000. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Lunch Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: People • Music of Africa Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

The reason you have found relatively few names to be restored is because I almost always avoid any sports figures or entertainers from before a certain period. Nonetheless, we all make mistakes. Thanks again, Quis separabit? 07:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Parallel Press

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

On 11 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aquatic weed harvester, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the use of an aquatic weed harvester (pictured) was recommended by Uganda's Ministry of Agriculture to reduce water hyacinth growth, which has caused a scarcity of fish in Lake Victoria? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aquatic weed harvester. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.

—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 00:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 12:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed your comment on my talk page in regards to the article List of McDonald's products. I can assure you that as someone who frequents a McDonald's restaurant quite often (I really do need to change that habit) the beverage known as McFloat have since been renamed Frozen McSpider. I do not understand why you would mark my edit as unconstructive, as if you have even bothered to search on google, you would see that I am quite correct. However, McDonald's in india still appears to serve this beverage.
https://mcdonalds.com.au/menu/frozen-coke-mcspider
http://mcdonaldsindia.net/happy-price-menu/coke-mcfloat.aspx
I hope that you take a look at the above sites.Dark-World25 (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dark-World25: Sorry about that. You didn't leave an edit summary (diff) and I've never heard of the name before, so it just seemed off-base. The message you received was automatically generated when I used Twinkle's warning system. I just added this information to the article (diff). Sorry again for the hassle. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pink slime you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Critic by Lajos Tihanyi. Oil on canvas, c.1916. Hello, Northamerica1000. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Critic Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Lunch • People Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

In regards to these two articles Jim's Steaks and Dalessandro's Steaks, I believe the user SummerPhDv2.0 has a personal agenda against these two eateries.

A little background, SummerPhDv2.0 is from Philly as far as I am concerned, so he is completely aware of the national notability of the restaurants. He has been removing reliable sources deeming them unreliable, but refuses to nominate the article for deletion. Here is some evidence he is knowingly removing sources:

On Jim's Steaks he changed the edit like this. He removed all sources including Philadelphia Magazine and then tagged the eatery for notability. He purposefully ignored sources such as New York Times which states:

• "The Big Three of cheese steaks, each championed with pugnacious intensity by a phalanx of ferocious partisans, are Jim's, Geno's and Pat's. Risking damage to my digestive system, to say nothing of my clothing, I returned to all three of them recently, in pursuit of gastronomic truth and beauty."

This source significantly covers the eatery for multiple paragraphs, yet PHD said it is trivial coverage.

On the article of Dalessandro's Steaks PHD lowered the quality of the article by removing sources as he did here. I stated on the talk page that those sources are fine, but he disagreed. If he was here to build an encyclopedia a cursory search of the subject bring sources such as NJ.com, "dalessandro%27s+steaks"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj04aT-scnLAhUGqR4KHVmaAfQQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=%22dalessandro's%20steaks%22&f=false, , , Men's Health (rates it as top cheesesteak in Northeast), and over 50 other sources which could easily be found if the editor bothered to make a search. Each source mention this eatery as among the best.

I offered for him to take it to AfD, but he refused, therefore if he knows it is notable why not add sources? I can only think of one reason, he is trying to lower the quality of the article in hopes that someone else will AfD. What is more disturbing is he is making small removals over time until the quality of article can no longer be maintained. Can you see any other rationale? There is a glitch with the link the book sources are here Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to discuss the issues on the article's talk page. You have yet to do so. After repeatedly explaining what I am doing, why I am doing it and waiting for comments, you have not commented. I then make the change. You then revert the change, with little explanation and I try to discuss the issues again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Discussion would be helpful. For example, the NYT source you mention above is not the source you have repeatedly restored to the article. That one -- the one I have removed several times -- is this one which says NOTHING of consequence about the subject of the article. Have I added sources to the article? No, I have not. I have been trying to remove some of the garbage that is there. The NYT article says, "One of my earliest childhood memories is of sitting next to my dad at Dalessandro’s, a tiny, always-packed steak shop in northwest Philadelphia, grease from a cheese steak dripping down my chin. Not much had changed at that particular joint — from yellowed newspaper clippings on the wall to the harried servers — since my dad was a teenager eating there in the early ’60s. For him, as it later was for me, and still is for plenty of others, Philly food could be summed up by those cheese steaks, some occasional soft pretzels and the local line of snacks called Tastykakes." You have repeatedly restored this as a source for the lede sentence in the article, where there should not be sources in any case, much less those that do not support any meaningful content in the article.

Again, please discuss the issues on the article's talk page. At the moment, I am awaiting comments at Talk:Dalessandro's_Steaks#Misused_source where I am attempting to discuss a blatantly promotional source. Please discuss the issue.

(Listing sources here that you feel I should have searched for, found and added is a strange basis for your repeated claims that I am vandalizing the article and WP:NOTHERE. For a "sneaky" vandal, I'm rather active on the talk page, if you'll take a look at it. Granted, it's been mostly a monologue, but that's out of my control.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just listed all the reasons why I am concerned going forward you will attempt to remove sources when no one is watching in order to have the article deleted. Removing reliable sources not adding new sources is vandalism when you know other sources exist. I had no plans to report you as long as you do not revert WITHOUT consensus, but since you stated you intend to removed reliable sources in 3 days, I thought it best to get a third party opinion, saying you "removed it over a period of time" only makes your edits more suspect not less. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS requires discussion. I have discussed every change. You have steadfastly refused to discuss the issues, letting my attempts to resolve the issues go completely unanswered. I have stated I will restore my edits in three days if you do not respond. Please discuss the issue of the blatantly promotional source at Talk:Dalessandro's_Steaks#Misused_source.

That you feel I should do something I am not doing is, at best, a content dispute. As I have explained, that is not "vandalism". Please read WP:VANDALISM. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Best leave it to the third party. Yeah? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Valoem and SummerPhDv2.0: I notice that matters have been/are being discussed on the respective article talk pages. I am rather busy, and may not become involved in all of this. An option is to add sources removed from the articles that may be useful for readers and that significantly expound upon the topics to Further reading sections in them. To obtain third opinions from neutral users, I recommend checking out Wikipedia:Third opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Beurre Maître d'Hôtel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Beurre Maître d'Hôtel for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I need you to handle some reports on wp:aiv because it is so crowded. Im sorry, but I really need you to come now. 2602:306:3357:BA0:6C95:25B4:E6F:5BBF (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm working on other matters right now, and some of the users you have posted there have not continued to vandalize after being warned several times. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Also some of the edits I have examined involving linkage to articles may not necessarily be vandalism, and may simply be edits performed by an inexperienced user. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• The edits of this user are vandalism, so you should block this user. 2602:306:3357:BA0:6C95:25B4:E6F:5BBF (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Which user? You have reported several at AIV. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
    • user:72.226.9.135 2602:306:3357:BA0:6C95:25B4:E6F:5BBF (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
      •  Done. The IP has been blocked for 24 hours to prevent further vandalism. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP.

Hi Northamerica1000. I thought this would help you. There are 50+ more at The Wikipedia Library if this one is not a good fit for you, in which case please pass this along to one of your Wikipedia colleagues that could benefit. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Pink slime you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pink slime for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mushroom ketchup you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vegetable chips you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Deep-fried butter you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Avocado cake you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Gates of Hell sculpture by Auguste Rodin, an example depicting the concept of the gates of hell Hello, Northamerica1000. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Gates of hell Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Critic • Lunch Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Hi there. Back a week ago, you removed promotional booking information for a band at Soulburn. The editor who added it has been edit warring to retain it, and has been otherwise disruptive in the article by removing sources, removing valid cleanup tags, and edit warring to include links to the band's YouTube videos. The editor, an apparent SPA, is already autoconfirmed, so semi-protection won't do anything. Maybe you could have a word with him about promoting the band? It's getting difficult to keep this article clean of promotion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Responded on the user's talk page. (permanent link). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

On 22 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Agliata, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that agliata sauce originated from the times of Ancient Rome, at which time it was a peasant food that was also used by the upper classes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agliata. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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) 12:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Say, Northamerica1000,

does this article require the description of the porrata twice, one in the lede and the other in the "Similar food" paragraph? It's a small article.

BTW, since I've corrected the spelling, it's "porrata", instead of "poratta", I've linked it to the main and most reputable dictionary of the italian language, published by the "Accademia della Crusca".

79.55.132.96 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Check out WP:MOSLEAD, where it states that key points in Wikipedia articles should be mentioned in the lead: "the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". Thanks for fixing the spelling error in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It still seems an oversize lead for such a short article to me, but I think I've got where you're leading. Thanks! 79.55.132.96 (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brooke Bond Taj Mahal Tea House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chai. 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) 16:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Fixed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

As an admin who's contributed to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, you might want to take a look at this:

User_talk:Adam9007#Wikipedia_is_not_your_political_forum

Very strange (not to mention downright unacceptable) if you ask me. Adam9007 (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Well, this is an election year, so people will disagree and bicker about political topics. I don't think I want to interject there, which could potentially serve to exacerbate the discussion there in a negative manner. Hopefully people will work out their differences. Article deletion is based upon several variables, such as coverage in reliable sources and consensus in deletion discussions, so one person's strong desire to have content deleted cannot be arbitrarily performed without proving the matter objectively.

Maybe the website's creators should change its name to "Bernie Sanders' Diggity Dank Meme Stash". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I added a short comment at Talk:Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash that is related to the discussion you pointed me to on your talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Simply letting you know these talkbacks are actually rather unnecessary as I watchlist every AfD I participate or otherwise touch. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: All right, but you have a tendency to ping users to participate in or revisit AfD discussions, whereas other users often don't ping you when responding to your commentary. As such, it seemed proper to let you know about a user comment. For what it's worth, please consider trying to be a bit clearer at AfD. For example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet Lamb, you stated, "Delete at best for now and Draft and Userfy if needed". However, articles are typically either userfied or draftified, but not both. Perhaps you could have worded it as "Draft or Userfy". Just a suggestion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Why were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of One: Kagayaku Kisetsu e characters and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air characters relisted? I see more than sufficient consensus to merge. czar 15:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Czar:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of One: Kagayaku Kisetsu e characters – you seem to be discounting the two delete !votes in the discussion.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air characters – The first !vote after the nomination states "Weak delete/merge". If the "weak delete" part wasn't there, then sure, but it is there.

Neither of these discussions have a strong merge consensus at this time in my opinion, although they are leaning merge. The second discussion has a stronger merge consensus forming, though, compared to the former listed above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

But AfD is not about counting heads? The consensus, in both discussions, is very clearly against keeping. And if some editors want to merge, or already have, the article needs to be redirected to preserve attribution... Straightforward case. czar 16:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Czar: No, AfD discussions are not closed based upon a vote count. They are closed based upon the strengths of arguments and overall/rough consensus in discussions. As stated above, why are you discounting the two delete !votes in the first discussion? It appears that you are basing matters upon a count, whereby three merge !votes somehow obliterates the two delete !votes present, which are both guideline-based. While consensus is "against keeping" at this point, this does not devalue the delete !votes in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I was saying the opposite—that your analysis was based on headcounts when it should be by consensus, which is against keeping the article and implicitly for merger. The first two delete "!votes" are not actual hardline stances for deletion. I would think that you already know that editors explicitly state whey they are opposed to redirection when that is the case and otherwise we default to redirect/merge when reasonable. Anyway, your rationale does not appear amenable to change so thanks anyway czar 19:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A general comment, without looking at the two cases you are discussing: Personally, if a few people say delete and then someone (often late in the discussion) comes up with a credible redirect target, I pretty much always do the redirect no matter what the "count" was. In most cases, the earlier delete !voters would have accepted redirect as an acceptable alternative if they had seen it, and IMO redirects are almost always preferable to deletion. Still, this is a matter of discretion for each admin to decide for themselves. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Some people delete the article and then create a redirect; I only do that if there was strong opinion that the article and its history should be outtahere. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar and MelanieN: Most of the time, discussions should be closed based upon the overall consensus for a particular outcome, rather than based upon the simpler premise of a consensus based upon whether or not the article will be retained, or if a discussion simply goes "against keeping". The first two delete !votes in the first-listed AfD discussion above (after the nomination) could certainly be intrepreted as actual hardline stances, because they advocate for deletion and provide a guideline-based rationale for doing so.

I think it's problematic to assume that all "editors explicitly state whey they are opposed to redirection" in AfD discussions, because this is simply not the case whatsoever in most discussions. Many users do not provide redirect opinions at all. This stance assumes that if users do not state opposition to a redirect, then it may be interpreted that they support or are not against one. Unless user's directly state their opinion about a particular matter, such as redirects, it's a bit of a slippery slope to then assume their opinion in one manner or another.

This is per my extensive experience in Afd participation and provision of closures in hundreds of discussions. People aren't necessarily going to add detailed rationales about other potential outcomes, particularly when they are not for those outcomes. However, this is not always the case. Note that a user in the first-listed discussion provided an !vote after the relisting, which advocates deletion while not objecting to a redirect, although also not particularly advocating for one either, per the wording of "without objection" rather than stating "delete and redirect", or something to that nature. The user is also clear in their opposition to a merge.

I'm not seeing anything on the Wikipedia Deletion process or Deletion policy pages stating that redirection or merging are defaulted to in AfD discussion closures as you suggest above. The notion of dafaulting to redirection and merging when such opinion is not directly stated by users appears to be your subjective opinion, rather than based upon guidelines or policies. WP:ATD-R states that unsuitable articles with useful titles can sometimes simply be redirected, but provides no guidance about this stance after an article has been nominated for deletion.

In AfD discussions, when users opine for deletion only, it should not be assumed that they are instead for redirection or not opposed to redirection in lieu of their delete !vote. When users are for redirection, it's quite likely that they would state this from the start. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the point is more that redirection is always a preferable alternative to deletion unless there is a consensus otherwise. czar 01:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

North, I'm not trying to be argumentative or say that you are wrong; your approach is valid and defensible. I'll just say that I don't agree with this: When users are for redirection, it's quite likely that they would state this from the start. Usually what happens is that nobody thinks about redirection, or suggests a valid redirection target, until later in the discussion. When someone does come up with a valid redirect target, earlier commenters will sometimes change their !vote to redirect, but more commonly they have moved on and don't return to that discussion to see that the possibility of redirection has been suggested. In my experience it's actually very rare to have an earlier commenter come back and say, "No, I don't agree with redirect, I still think it should be deleted." A delete !vote coming AFTER redirection has been suggested should be interpreted as opposed to redirection, but a delete !vote coming BEFORE redirection has been suggested merely expresses that the article should not remain as an article - and that redirect hadn't occurred to them. And as the saying goes, Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap (essay, not policy).--MelanieN (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I understand your points, but we should not use crystal ball or Magic 8-Ball theorizing to guess or assume that users who don't !vote for redirection have not considered this option when others later !vote for redirection. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French fry vending machine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Testaroli you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The article French fry vending machine you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:French fry vending machine for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Hello! The following is WikiProject This Special Day's articles for improvement's daily selection: Skvader Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Snipe hunt • Jenny Haniver Get involved with the TSDAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Share this message with other editors Posted by: w.carter-Talk 00:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC) using New improved MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of WikiProject TSDAFI •

diff link? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)