Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 Threads older than 20 days are typically archived. Some may be archived sooner.

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to know that your "Did you know" inclusion for today is wrong. There's a $1000 pizza that's being sold at a restaurant in New York: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/1000-pizza-ninos-pizza-new-york-city_n_1615538.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlta6uwXUgI — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesSantee (talk • contribs) 04:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just found a shitload of pizzas more expensive than your claimed "world's most expensive pizza": http://hauteliving.com/2010/03/top-five-most-expensive-pizzas-in-the-world/29487/

This lapse of judgement on your part is astonishing. I think I speak for the rest of the Wikipedia community when I say that you should step down as a member of this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesSantee (talk • contribs) 04:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there are expensive pizzas out there that cost more, which was discussed at the nomination page for the DYK entry. The entry is based upon that which is confirmed by Guinness World Records. This is verified in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source:

– Source: (Staff) (April 26, 2014). "$450 pizza: B.C. pizzeria holds record for most expensive pie". CTV News. Retrieved 2 September 2014.

The entry is not based upon my claim, it's based upon Guinness World Records and reporting from a reliable news source. Sorry, but the lapse of judgment in this matter is yours, not mine. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesSantee (talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your non-reply is moot, but thanks for at least replying. Supreme facepalm of destiny NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, am wikicology. Thank you for your contributions. Wikipedia appreciates your help. I will find it very unconstructive to template you as regards your recent edit here due to WP:DTR. I suggest that you should always leave your contributions with a summary. Althou it might not be intentional because I'm prety sure that you are very much familiar with the policy. Please kindly take the use of edit summary into consideration. Wikicology (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an edit summary there, of "+". It's an abbreviation I use for "expanding article". Notice how the plus symbol is explained in a later edit summary in the revision history for Ginestrata. For more examples of edit summary abbreviations that Wikipedians use, see Wikipedia:Edit summary legend/Quick reference. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that you are right and am familiar with the use of conventions. Perhaps I never sighted in in the first instance. However new editors may not be familiar with that. Cheers.Wikicology (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DOS 0? We seem to have a clear consensus, nobody is disputing the deletion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Joy: the discussion was relisted per procedures stated at WP:RELIST, wherein it states "However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus.".

The discussion only has three total participants (including the nomination) and only two !votes, not a very strong input to draw a consensus from. If you want the article deleted, feel free to formalize the matter by adding "delete" in bold to your comment there, as is the procedure at AfD discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please stop doing this. Thank you. James500 (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:James500: I bolded your part of your !vote at this discussion because it's the standard procedure in AfD discussions. See WP:AFDFORMAT, which explains procedures for contributing to AfD discussions. Bold is used because, per the linked page, "Some bots and tools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words, so following this convention is highly recommended." Also, the AfD logs have been hefty lately, and without the bold, it's possible that your !vote could be missed by a closer. My addition of the bold did not change the content of your !vote other than to add bold to the word "keep". Hope this helps to clarify why the edit was performed. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding !votes is "highly recommended" but not compulsory. Accordingly, I would be grateful if you do not modify my !votes in future. Thank you. James500 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:James500: I'll do my best to remember, and sure, I understand why one wouldn't want anything in their !vote changed whatsoever, not even by simply adding bold to the first word. I notice that you undid the bold in your !vote there. Just out of curiosity, why don't you want to follow the recommended procedures for AfD? I'm not going to change it, but just wondering. At any rate, happy editing. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! With the TAFI deadline approaching, can you please take a look at the alternative to merging I have proposed here. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Finnusertop: Thanks for the notification. I need some time to think the matter over further. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for acknowledging. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arches were used in Ancient Roman architecture to build aqueducts, such as the Aqueduct of Segovia Hello, Northamerica1000. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Ancient Roman architecture Previous selections: Consumer electronics • Raven Tales Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay didn't realize that those don't go if there was a dead link-though looking at the history of all of those articles they all had the same links and never changed so I was trying to help the articles. Wgolf (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Wgolf: Despite links being dead, they can still possibly be found using webpage archive services, such as the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Some of the articles though were stuff like links to something like Yahoo's main page or something like that so I deleted the link all together since those seemed a bit off. (Now ones I am not sure about are ones that link to really old PDF files) Wgolf (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Wgolf: If a supposed reference links directly to Yahoo's main page (without a redirect, etc.), then sure, it's not a viable source. If it's a Yahoo News link that redirects to the Yahoo main page, for example, it's better to tag with a "dead link" template within the reference. As stated above, the content may be available through archive services. The bottom line is that articles that have sources formatted as inline citations should not have the BLP Unsourced template placed on them, even if the links are dead. Additionally, many other templates may be used, such as "unreliable sources", "BLP sources" (for BLP articles needing additional sources), etc., if necessary. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, articles with listed sources can be tagged with the "No footnotes" template. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry about al that I feel really bad now. Wgolf (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per my request on your talk page to correct the matter for the articles incorrectly tagged, please just do that. No need to feel bad about honest mistakes whatsoever. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have put the no foot notes tags on some. I have deleted some links that just went to a main page and put the unsourced (like they just went to a main page of a site instead of the actual story). Wgolf (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied at User talk:Wgolf#Too many articles incorrectly tagged with BLP unsourced.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This old one right here Becky Love, now she was a finalist in a comp but what comes off as odd is the lack of refs and the fact the page creator has the same name as her. Not sure what to say about this old article. Wgolf (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Wgolf: I always perform several source searches prior to nominating any article for deletion, to check for topic notability. If you're not already aware of it, check out the useful information at WP:BEFORE. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Northamerica1000. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/current discussions/equality in enforcement#They're separate but that's just an excuse to prevent anything being done about it.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm passing on contributing to the discussion there. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry don't think I ever really used it that much till today-which I thought you said you could put it for articles like that. So what is no footnotes used for then? Wgolf (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at your talk page. Please respond there. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As is this case with this old article I just found Linda Finnie, which I just put as a one source (which is what it is), but what should we do about links like that, when they say require subscription? I think maybe just keep it until someone gets more or something. Well I don't see anything wrong with the article its just the source is all. Wgolf (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (ping) User:Wgolf: For starters, check out WP:SOURCEACCESS, which states in part, "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." So, yes, definitely keep the source in place. Also, I've added the {{paywall}} template to the article's listed source. Regarding what to do with the article, as I stated above, I always perform several source searches prior to nominating any article for deletion, to check for topic notability. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I have added the following source to the article, and removed the one source template.

"News: Opera singer Linda Finnie hits high notes for Ayrshire Hospice concert in Galston". Daily Record. November 30, 2012. Retrieved 17 September 2014. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Rather than tagging everything, consider performing source searches and adding reliable sources to articles to verify content in them, if you're interested in this type of work. This serves to improve the encyclopedia to a much higher degree compared to just adding tags to articles, in my opinion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi User:Stalwart111: Thanks for your support in terms of a potential adminship nomination, which is much appreciated. I need more time to fully consider this proposition, so I'll respond at a later time in this thread with a specific answer. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - no rush. A nomination may be better coming from someone else (I haven't ever nominated someone at RFA before) with a co-nom but I'm happy to find that person. Take all the time you need and please know I won't be offended if you decline - it has to be the right thing for you. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am just interested because you have that much edits... 😳 -- Ababcdc (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, please realize that I am not necessarily contesting the close as no consensus, though, in my biased opinion, the consensus was for something stronger. My question is more driven by simply looking at the criteria for closing. Reading Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures, I see that none of the four criteria are satisfied. I had a similar impression of the this close. I agreed with your decision to relist it, but closing it the 2nd time seemed a bit strange to me.
• I am myself interested in clearing the backlog of various stuff on wikipedia, as I sense your motivation was, so my questions are not just motivated by idle curiosity in this particular case.
• The nominator had listed a bunch of points for his close: in my opinion, in the hope that something would stick. When you closed it, you made reference to none of those points. What prevents the nominator from simply renominating it with the same justification? Kingsindian (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters, first of all, I base my closes upon WP:NACD, which is part of the Wikipedia:Deletion process guideline page, rather than the opinion essay you link above. It's clear that there was no consensus in the discussion, and the nominator's points were sufficiently addressed by participants in the discussion. Sometimes when closing discussions, it isn't always unnecessary to restate all of the points that participants discuss, because it's basically just rewriting all that's already been said. In this particular discussion, much of the commentary was thoroughly detailed, as well as being guideline- and policy-based.

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Jerusalem tractor attack, it was also clear that there was no consensus in the discussion. It's unclear what you mean above by “but closing it the 2nd time seemed a bit strange to me”. The discussion was only closed once. I relisted the discussion in hopes to obtain more input so that consensus could be determined. After adequate participation occurred, I closed the discussion accordingly. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I often confuse essays with policies. As I said, I am not knowledgeable in this area.
• When you say that "the nominator's points were sufficiently addressed by participants in the discussion", and then you close the discussion as "no consensus", it is unclear to me what exactly you mean.
• Consider this. I see the "keep" option there as saying "A keep outcome reflects a rough consensus to retain (i.e. not delete) a page, though not necessarily in its current form." People were concerned about the title or the notability of some of the events, but as far as I can see, they did not give any convincing arguments for deleting the page altogether. As far as I understand, "no consensus" in AfD means something different: that there is doubt between keeping the article and deleting it. Kingsindian (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, both discussions did not reveal a solid consensus for one particular action, hence the no consensus closes. For the most part, in the "2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters" deletion discussion, participants for article deletion and retention provided guideline- and policy-based rationales supporting their stances. While it's your opinion that delete !voters did not provide convincing arguments, which you're naturally entitled to, others interpreted various guidelines and policies differently than you in that discussion, and those views must be taken into consideration. Per this section of the Deletion process guideline page, A no consensus close "reflects the lack of a rough consensus for any one particular action", which was evidentiary in the overall discussion that transpired. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I understand your reasoning a bit better now, though I still disagree with it. My only request is to indicate on the close which arguments you felt were arguable/had consensus and which did not. See for example the detailed justification given here. Otherwise the contentious issues will smoulder below the surface. Kingsindian (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have slightly addended the close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters to reflect my viewpoint about the overall discussion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]