THC Science

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 when more than 1 section is present.

The final straw...

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]

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

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

Extended discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think your first RFA was unfairly influenced by the activities of the ARS. Your want to defend them and your involvement (perfectly understandably though it might have been) was seen as badgering. I think the badgering was seen more as a sign of immaturity than disruption - the need to correct the record rather simply standing on that record, come what may. At the time, ARS had a terrible track record of simply allowing users (even SPAs) to post a link to an AFD for "their" article which would almost instantly result in 5-10 zombie-like keep votes. There were a handful of hard-working ARS members who genuinely tried to fix articles in order to save them. It's now mostly an inactive project and so doesn't influence AFD in the same way that it once did (the fact that is sought to influence AFD at all was a problem).

One of the other issues raised was a perceived inability to respond to things succinctly. I think you've improved on that significantly, certainly within the discussions in which I have participated. Again, the lengthy responses to oppose votes probably didn't help that perception.

The AFD stats tool is having issues at the moment but it would seem you have greatly improved your ability to contribute to AFDs in a meaningful way and that your recent contributions have been far more in line with the prevailing "community view" - that is, your opinion matches consensus more often than it once did. I should note that if I were to contribute either a nomination or a co-nomination, I would seek to highlight your excellent work closing AFDs, your improved ability to judge consensus and your capacity to make admin-style closure/relisting decisions and then back them with succinct, policy-based rationale on your talk page (where necessary). The fact is, we regularly disagree at AFD and two of the "ongoing" discussions in the AFD stats log (of 5 or so) are discussions where we have disagreed. I'd point that out too, highlighting that despite our differences of opinion, your thoughtful contributions have impressed me enough to nominate you. Effectively I'm proposing to give admin tools to someone with whom I don't always agree (including the non-admin "no consensus" closure of discussions where I have argued strongly one way or the other).

I have no concerns about the extent of your policy knowledge (something others were concerned about in 2012). My only hesitation would be FFD where I spend little time. There are far more intricate policies there relating to fair use and copyright. I'm not suggesting you don't understand them - but I myself don't understand them well enough to make a judgement about them in any way. You would need to seek the endorsement of others in that regard.

You would probably need a more comprehensive answer to the standard question - have you ever edited under a different username? - to alleviate concerns. Explain the how/why/etc there. Votes of those who still oppose on those grounds without reading that will be discounted.

One thing I would propose to do, prior to a nomination, would be to ping TParis (I won't just yet but he will see this when I do), one of the most vocal oppose voters in your last RFA. I would ask him for his thoughts, with the benefit of two years additional growth and contributions. He's a pretty reasonable guy and I think we could trust him to provide an honest and balanced assessment. It also allows for some "devil's advocate" consideration, if you will.

I hope all of that helps your thought processes. I've hatted this so that it doesn't take over your talk page. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

First of all, I don't care to make ARS a part of a future nomination whatsoever. I resigned my membership from the project to simplify my presence on Wikipedia, due to concerns from other users about the project's potential for canvassing and to avoid being further typecast in a negative light. At the time of my membership, I was one of the members who would actually routinely improve articles by adding reliable sources that provided significant coverage, but unfortunately, others simply go to !vote at AfD sans any article improvements. I had noticed the latter increasingly, which was a significant factor in my resignation. For what it's worth, to address concerns about project canvassing, I also personally added the Project Code of conduct template to the project's rescue list way back on January 22, 2012, the same day I created the list (diff). This is further direct evidence regarding my awareness of, adherence to, and respect of canvassing guidelines, way before RfA1.

In 2014 (mostly in January-March) I added some nominations to the rescue list for articles that I had difficulties finding sources for, in hopes of obtaining assistance, which resulted in varying degrees of responses. I notice lately that the list has been used more in accordance with its intended instruction set. I've moved away from it, though, because I'm still concerned about users that don't improve articles, and instead just go to AfD to !vote. Ultimately, I've moved onward to other endeavors.

I continue to keep commentary concise, although in some cases, detailed discussion is appropriate to extrapolate upon various matters. AfD closes can often be kept concise, although some may require a more developed rationale, such as those with complex or long discussions or that are controversial in nature.

The last time I viewed my AfD stats, my accuracy rates were in accordance those that are typically expected from Administrators. Upon running a query, AfD stats presently appears to continue having problems at this time.

I'm well versed to participate in FfD due to extensive knowledge about Wikipedia's image use and copyright policies (WP:C, WP:CV, WP:REUSE, Creative Commons licensing, GNU licensing). Check out my upload log to view copyrighted images I have uploaded that are used in articles. I am also a significant contributor to Wikimedia Commons (see User uploads and the category Files uploaded by User:Northamerica1000). I'm knowledgeable and well-versed about image use and copyright policies on both websites.

I can easily devise a comprehensive answer to any query about my sole previous account should it arise. Denotation of what appears to have been a check user query at RfA1 would be a part of this answer, should the question arise. Overall, it remains very simple, I changed my user name to one I prefer. Prior to that, I edited as an unregistered user.

Regarding the involvement of TParis, I hesitate to reply here without pinging that user, but he has stated in the past that he prefers to limit communications between ourselves (diff). After that time, we've had some very limited communication, and he didn't complain when I worked to improve an article he has significantly expanded (Ford Island, e.g. diff, diff, diff, (et al.)). We also had a discussion on his user talk page in late November 2012 regarding aspects of RfA1 (diff, scroll down to see the entire discussion). His initial reply was rather standoffish and unnecessarily scolding, upon which after I explained my rationale more, we had a relatively functional discussion.

His opposition at RfA1 was based upon events that had occurred over 13 months prior to the RfA. I feel that he has already developed a negative opinion about me that appears unlikely to change, in which his initial perception and judgments about me are negative from the start (e.g. late November 2012 discussion). At RfA1, rather than responding to my genuine concerns in his opposition !vote, he responded with an argumentum ad hominem reply that didn't address the content of my commentary whatsoever, stating in part that he preferred it to have been written in a different grammatical person, among other ad hominem arguments. At the time I was disappointed in the lack of any response to my actual, sincere queries. Of note is commentary at his present Administrator review (at Wikipedia:Administrator review/TParis 2), in which a user states on 3 July 2014 that he “... seems to nurse his grudges, and at times his behavior crosses the line into ad hominem gratuitous comments directed at other editors”.

Due to all of the above, I feel that I would not receive an objective assessment from this individual. Notice that I'm not pinging him here or linking to his Administrator review, to respect his desire to limit contact, and I prefer that you do the same herein. Do however you please outside of this talk page. Also of note is that the above is not intended to badmouth the user whatsoever, it's just a detailed reply regarding the last part of your comment above.

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

Note: Queried User:Anna Frodesiak on their talk page (diff) about the possibility of a co-nomination. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also notifying User:RoySmith to this discussion, since he said he'd be interested in posting an adminship nomination on my behalf in March 2014 (diff). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, saw those - good idea. Anna raises a good point and I acknowledge you're probably considering "running the gauntlet again" because I (fairly enthusiastically) urged you to consider it. I said it earlier but please know I'll think no less of you if after all of this you decline to run again. I've suggested it because I think we need more competent admins and your conduct leads me to believe you would make a competent (nay, excellent) admin. You're no glory-seeker or hat-collector and that appeals also. I like the idea of a reluctant candidate; a Cincinnatus if you will.

Your comments with regard to FFD are reassuring - you certainly have a better handle on such things than I.

Understand your reluctance with regard to TP. I'll think about this some more. I think we need a way of specifically addressing some of the strong oppose opinions from the last RFA before trying again and simply hoping for the best. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Stalwart111: Basing a new RfA upon RfA1 would not the most functional way to move forward in terms of a successful RfA, in my opinion. It seems that this would provide an inopportune start for a second RfA, focusing on the past prior to RfA1, rather than my progress and abilities I possess at this time and work I have performed following RfA1, particularly in areas of deletion.

The user we discussed above just doesn't like me (see this discussion, beginning a January 2012 discussion in part with "Overall, I dislike Northamerica1000...", and later replying in argumentum ad hominem stating "Really, that's the best you got? I laugh at you" in response to a comment I made there. Conversely, my replies remained polite and constructive, such as "I don't laugh at such concerns" and "...I don't have any personal problem with you..." There are more examples of this ongoing behavior pattern toward me from this individual available, but hopefully you are seeing the bigger picture at this point. Their involvement won't help my potential for success. So, no thanks, I don't want to involve that user in a future RfA.

It's also likely that in a new RfA, questions would be posted by users about RfA1. After RfA1, I took all of the concerns into strong consideration; some of them were constructive and provided insight for ways to improve, which I have considerably fulfilled. Ultimately, since a considerable focus using the tools would be in areas of deletion, this would be a logical area to base a potential new RfA upon. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a subpage

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

(ping) User:Anna Frodesiak: I'll keep this in mind. For the time being, I'll just keep the discussion herein. Also thanks for your input on your talk page. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anna: Regarding RfA, I have responded below in the Summary section. Thanks very much for your appreciation of List of pastries and List of pasta dishes, and for your work to perform the table conversion within List of pasta dishes. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

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

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is tremendous, I appreciate the time you put into these things. A lot of your contributions and style of carrying out these closures can be compared with ArmBrust. So when you are planning for a RfA? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:OccultZone: Thanks for your reply. Presently, AFD Stats is not providing accurate results. Since people at RfA often view these results as a part of formulating an opinion, it is prudent at the very least to wait until AFD Stats is functioning properly. I have contacted the original author of the script on their talk page regarding this matter.

Per the initial query above, I'm also in the process of obtaining more input and seeking nominators/co-nominators. Some participants at RfA may consider self-nominations to possess less significance compared to those written by other users. Also, if you haven't already done so, check out the extended discussion above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Statistics for User:Northamerica1000

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

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

As the original developer of that tool, I can guarantee that it is not 100% accurate, and there will be some errors, especially over a long range of time. The tool works on a number of assumptions that aren't always true. For instance, the tool looks for a bolded !vote, and attributes it to the user in the next signature that it finds. If it's attributing a vote to you when all you did was relist the page, that might be because the person who voted directly above your relisting message forgot to sign their post (or signed their post in a strange way that the tool doesn't recognize). Therefore, the tool sees your signature next, and assigns the vote to you.

There really isn't a practical way to make the tool more accurate than it is. However, it is accurate in most cases, as long as you routinely bold your votes, make standard votes like Keep or Delete (as opposed to non-standard votes like Agree or Nuke), and sign your posts. Over a long period of time, the error rate shouldn't be more than a percent or two. Since you do a ton of relists and delsorts, your error rate might be somewhat higher. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 18:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scottywong: Thanks very much for the reply. Both of the AfD discussions I linked above as examples had users that omitted the date timestamp in their signatures, providing only their user name and talk page link. In a potential future RfA, perhaps this matter regarding AfD Stats could be brought to people's attention in the General comments section. It would be problematic for !votes I didn't cast to be considered as a part of my AfD !voting activity. The incidence rate is likely low, though, with a low probability of stated relisting after a signature lacking a timestamp being a regular occurrence. I will consider adding-in the date to a user's signature when this occurs, to prevent malformed AfD stats for my activity from being generated. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked

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

Hi User:Spartaz: Yes, AfD has experienced a noticeable lack of overall input for awhile. Regard soft deletion, rather than a quantification of how many discussions I would feel comfortable performing with this close, this requires a qualitative approach. Closes for no quorum discussions should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and in part, relative to the content of an article. For example, an article with one sentence along the lines of "(Topic) is a (fill-in noun) that is (fill-in adjective, noun, etc.)" which is unsourced would be more likely to be soft deleted versus a developed article with sections, references, etc. However, this is just an example, and other factors can come into play, such as an article having problems with elements of advertising or promotion, close paraphrasing from sources, etc., as well as the extent of said potential problems. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that I have slightly refactored this thread, moving it from the bottom of this page to the "The final straw..." section of this page, and changed the section header to header3, to keep commentary about a potential RfA all in one place.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really NC closes should be done by an admin - maybe we should make it official. If you are interested in being nominated please let me know and I will do some due diligence but I'm already minded that someone who does as much work in AFD as you do should be an admin and I found little to fault in a quick review of your recent closes but for the pressure of AFD its as well if I can review a good proportion of your recent closes for any skeletons. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spartaz: Thanks for your input. Regarding a new RfA, it's still in the "consideration" period at this time. I'm aware that at RfA, self nominations may be perceived by some as carrying less significance compared to nominations performed by others, so I appreciate the prospect of your interest in providing a nomination/co-nomination. Regarding non-admins performing no consensus closes, I feel that this should be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than in absolute terms, relative to each overall discussion, the experience of the closer, additional variables such as topics that may be perceived as controversial, and other various factors. To view my AfD discussion closes, check out my Discussion closures log. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you have seen me express this view enough over the years to know its a sincere position based because the reduced tool set for non-admins limits choices in closing outcomes and because NC is rarely non-controversial. I have reviewed your closes and for this reason I'm suggesting we make this official as you are already performing NC closes at the correct level. You would benefit from have thr ability to soft delete some of those marginal closes. (This is a rare wiki complement from me). Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The soup

The bread soup has probably originates from the Roman Empire, soldiers were eating something similar. Hafspajen (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Hafspajen: I've recently created several soup articles, so clarification to which article you're referring to would be appreciated.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acquacotta. Hafspajen (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ping) User:Hafspajen: If you could do so, provision here of a source backing up this notion would be appreciated. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thínk it was in a book in the Ancient Roman cuisine somewhere... But I tried to find it but don't know where it was. Could have been some library book I borrowed once...? Hafspajen (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Food and dining in the Roman Empire# Grains and legumes -a kind of a Pottage. Hafspajen (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ping) User:Hafspajen: At the article you linked above, the section has content about grain pottage, but aquacotta historically wasn't and in contemporary times isn't prepared with grain. There's also content about "Julian stew", which was consumed by Roman soldiers, but that soup differs from acquacotta, such as being prepared with ground meat, wine and fennel, which acquacotta lacks. Without a reliable source to back up the assertion, I hesitate to add information about the Roman Empire to the acquacotta article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WEll, it was probably original res from my side, then.

Hafspajen (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find book, maybe this? [18] The history of acquacotta go back to the dawn of human habitation in the area, for in fact, the Italic tribes used to offer their gods seasonal vegetables in the form of what we might term an “archaic acquacotta”. Today’s version is a dish with many seasonal variations, prepared with cultivated or wild greens, to which are added pork lard with garlic and marjoram. Hafspajen (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[19] It was used to make bread and porridge, the staples of the Roman diet. Poor people subsisted on a gruel-like soup of mush made from grain. Hafspajen (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All they could afford was soup and bread and porridge sometimes. ....[20]

I don't know...

http://www.latolfa.com/tolfa2000-7/english/inpagine/infolklore/cuisine.html - Getting closer, and an interesting read, but it's not a reliable source, and it's possible that the author is incorrect. If the author is correct, it's possible that the dish may have been "migrated" from southern Tuscany to Rome, which is in Lazio, south of Tuscany (the two regions border one-another)
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub369/item2071.html - not a reliable source, and only mentions mush soup made with grain and soup made in giant vats.
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_food_did_the_poor_ancient_Romans_eat - not a reliable source, and just states that poor Romans ate soup and bread, and sometimes porridge. It doesn't fit into the history of the soup as backed by reliable sources in the article, specifically acquacotta's invention as a means to make very stale bread edible. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will need to start some more serious res about it, I think it was a book about food in ancient Rom, but I have to retrace my steps, somehow. Will take some time - and I am not sure I will succed... If I manage, I let you know. Hafspajen (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew that AfD...

I noticed you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiend (film) (again). A while after the first relist I wrote that I was withdrawing it (since there had only been two, opposing, votes and I had changed my mind anyway) and removed the AfD template from Fiend (film) and posted that it had undergone a deletion discussion with the result of "withdrawn by nominator (keep)" on the talk page.

So, relisted? Eman235/talk 08:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Eman235: An outstanding delete !vote from another user exists in the discussion, so a speedy keep close (see WP:SK#1) is incorrect to perform. With two remaining !votes in the discussion after your withdrawal, it is a valid discussion for relisting, per WP:RELIST. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the AfD template to the article and removed the AfD notice that you placed on the talk page, per the above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, policy technicalities, I'm still getting those worked out. Anyway, thanks. :) Eman235/talk 08:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, and thanks for understanding. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested AFD closure

As you saw, I do not agree with your closure of this AFD. This is a contentious case that shouldn't be closed by a non admin. --Tachfin (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and I understand that you want the article deleted. While my no consensus close was entirely accurate per the discussion therein, we'll see how it goes from this point onward. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. Closed again by another user as "No consensus tending towards keep thanks to improvement". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Tachfin, you should absolutely not have reopened that discussion by reverting the non-admin closure. Admins can revert non-admin closures. Don't like the result? Take it to WP:DRV. Your revert was reverted by an admin with the same closure result. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: Well AFAIK, non-admins should stay away from closing contentious AFDs (regardless if their decision was right or not. I myself, in a distant pass, did non-admins closure but only in absolutely non controversial cases; speedy keep, withdrawn nom etc). DRV is when an admin closes a debate. I still think that the current outcome was ill-considered and the current content of the article is crap, but this isn't the place for this debate. --Tachfin (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Solar activity

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

headlines

Collapsed content

First of all, all this nonsense is totally unnecessary⟨ʔʌʊ--172.56.22.228 (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)hItalic text⟩jhhjjs̬θ̼ʢð∉∴ $y$ ℵ--~~gف~yيعאמtשњфσΣὍǚ₡₪≥≈←§–Ӱpeace and loveǎǍǍČē ĎĬmèĹĹâʂʃʃt͡sħβd͡ʒd͡ʑt͡ɕ jhj[reply]

File:Headlines

junk^[1]y

Joseph jr

^ Cite error: The named reference undefined was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

It's entirely unclear what you're referring to here. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Animatronics

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2014)

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: Ancient Roman architecture • Consumer electronics

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...

Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Tech News: 2014-39

09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lettuce soup

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References for list articles

I have searched for a guideline or policy on whether a list article needs to have references, but I have not been successful in that search. In past years, when I have started a list article, no one expressed a need for references. However, more recently, some list articles that I have started have received tags indicating a need for references. (Please see "List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers" and "List of climate change books".) Because most list articles in Wikipedia seem to be without references, references seem to be unnecessary, but I am hesitant to remove the tags without mentioning a guideline or policy to support the removal. I have noticed that you have started many list articles, so you seem to be especially qualified to answer my question: Where does Wikipedia have a guideline or policy about whether a list article requires references? (I am adding your talk page to my watchlist.)
—Wavelength (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources. An article may be ported to another site or printed and must stand on their own. -- Gadget850^talk 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Wavelength: In addition to the above MOS link, below are more links to peruse.

Regarding List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers, check out: WP:NLIST, WP:BLPCAT and BLP: Where BLP does and does not apply. Sourcing content within the "Theme(s)" column of the table would be an improvement.
Regarding List of climate change books, check out: WP:LISTN. Soucring content within the "Theme(s) and subtheme(s)" column of the table would be an improvement.

Also see WP:MINREF, "When you must use inline citations". Hope this helps you out. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gadget850 and NorthAmerica. I have been pondering your replies and the guidelines to which you have linked. (I would have thought that the reader could visit the article for each of the listed entries to find supporting references, and that this would be also possible on mirror sites.)

"List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers" (in its present version) has 89 writers listed. "List of climate change books" (in its present version) has 54 books listed.

If I am going to copy one or more references from each article to the corresponding list article, I would need to decide which reference(s) to choose, and then the list article would have a large number of references. I am still not well skilled in using the wikicode for references, although I can easily add external links within the tabulated lists. (The first column seems to me to be the most appropriate column for adding the references.)

—Wavelength (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC) and 19:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Hello I saw you editing and decided to say hi :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Good userz (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spam (food) Article Edits

Hi there! I’m Maggie, and I’m part of the group (with Linda, Tiffany, and Kathy) that is working on editing the Spam (food) article as part of a class assignment for INFO 3460.

Thank you so much for looking over our proposal for edits and checking the reliability of the sources we found! Your feedback has been very useful to us as we continue to search for reliable sources. As per your recommendation, we have looked at Gumbo, and have also been referencing Hot Chocolate as model articles for our editing and re-organizing of this article.

We just wanted to let you know that we are starting to add and change actual content in the article now. One major change we are in the process of editing is adding a ‘History’ section and a ‘Use in Pop Culture’ section, using information previously included in the broad ‘International Usage’ section as well as new information from our sources. We welcome you to continue checking over our work (including the new sources we added to our bibliography list) and providing us with constructive criticism/advice throughout this process!

Thanks, Mwong850 (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:mwong850: Thanks for the note, and for your group's work in improving the article. Despite the work being required for your class (in a way, it's obligatory), you could have chosen any article, but you guys chose Spam (food), which is awesome because food articles are a significant part of my focus on Wikipedia, so I'm biased in your group's favor to a degree.

Check out the source search links below which provide more sources, many of which are reliable. I've listed a few reliable sources from these searches below the links (more are available from the searches).

Google Books search

The Guide to United States Popular Culture. p. 762.
The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink. pp. 559-560.
Vault Guide to the Top Consumer Products Employers. pp. 180-181.
Cuisine and Culture: A History of Food and People. p. 347

Google search for new sources

Bloomberg Businessweek article. "How Spam Meat Has Survived Spam E-Mail".
Adweek article
Forbes article
Mother Jones article

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Northamerica1000! Our group just wanted to thank you for your additional list of sources, which you've posted here and on the talk page. We really appreciate that you have taken the time and effort to provide us with such useful and supportive feedback. It really means a lot to us, and has been so helpful as we continue to work on improving the article! We are currently reading over these sources to brainstorm how to incorporate them into the article. If you have any more ideas or advice on things we can change, feel free to let us know either here or on the Spam (Food) talk page or our user talk pages. We look forward to keeping in touch with you as we proceed with this process (we'll be updating the Spam(food) talk page with what we're working on editing), and hope you have a great week! Thanks again! - Mwong850 (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of soups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bisque. 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) 09:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.

I was looking through your page and contributions and whoa! I'm a huge fan, just saying thanks also for leaving that help thing on my page. Hopefully one day I can be one tenth as awesome as you! Vlolv (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Vlolv: thanks for the kind words, and welcome to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Maccu

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cream of asparagus soup

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Strolghino

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you merge 2 Spi reports for me?

Okay starting here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mjnichols, then there seems to be one though that seems to be connected to that user though as he did the same pages Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaroldSalasI/Archive. So yeah it just got confusing and I need someone to merge these, thanks! Wgolf (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Wgolf: I'm going to pass on performing the merge. Fistly, I'm not an administrator, and there has been significant checkuser and administrator input at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaroldSalasI/Archive. I recommend contacting User:Risker and User:Callanecc for guidance regarding this matter, both of whom have contributed to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaroldSalasI/Archive discussion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been addressed by Callanecc, whose attention to this is appreciated. Risker (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of hot beverages may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* [[Smoking Bishop]] – a type of mulled wine] punch or [[wassail]] that was especially popular in [[Victorian era|Victorian England]] at

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

Featured content: Oil paintings galore

In the media: Indian political editing, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Congressional chelonii

Recent research: 99.25% of Wikipedia birthdates accurate; focused Wikipedians live longer; merging WordNet, Wikipedia and Wiktionary

Traffic report: Wikipedia watches the referendum in Scotland

WikiProject report: GAN reviewers take note: competition time

Arbitration report: Banning Policy, Gender Gap, and Waldorf education

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hey i was the person that left that comment that you said thanks for the kind words, anyway i took the advice and help from that document template you left on my page. I think i got it right but can you check and review my first article that i'm working on. I trust you if it really is not worth it you can tell me and i'll try another article. I'm just trying to figure this thing out and contribute! Here's my discussion link for my page. [page] and here is the page itself X3SR. If you can help thanks if you are busy and can't I truthfully understand. I just had no where to turn to i apologize if this is an intrusion on your time. Thanks either way!

Warm Regards,
Vlolv (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Vlolv: Regarding the X3SR article, since it was nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion (AfD), the future of the article will be decided there. That said, the nomination is based upon a perception from the nominator of the band not meeting various criteria at Criteria for musicians and ensembles and not meeting standards of topic notability on Wikipedia, per the part of the nomination that states, "No coverage found in reliable independent sources."

Try to address the concerns of the nominator at the AfD discussion. The article would benefit from the addition of independent, third-party reliable sources that provides significant coverage about the topic to qualify its notability, which are also used to verify information in articles. Also note that the criteria at Criteria for musicians and ensembles can also be used to demonstrate topic notability if the band qualifies under any of them.

Even if the article is deleted, don't be discouraged about contributing to Wikipedia. AfD is part of the checks and balances on Wikipedia, and it's commendable that you would like to contribute toward its improvement. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3PB

Strictly speaking, as far as I can see, this AfD should have been closed as "keep Paper Buildings" because that article is the one that was actually nominated for deletion. It wasn't redirected during the course of the AfD, it was moved and rewritten. James500 (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:James500: Thanks for the input. I agree, and have revised the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3PB, along with templates associated with this matter on all pertinent pages. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2014)

Aerial photograph of George Bush Intercontinental Airport, an international airport in Houston, United States

Hello, Northamerica1000.

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

International airport

Previous selections: Ancient Roman architecture • Ancient Roman architecture

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...

Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Tech News: 2014-40

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Help me create a Request for Comment asking that Jimmy Wales step down

I want to create a request for comment with some long term members of the Article Rescue Squadron.

This request for comment would argue that the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down.

Please e-mail me if you are interested. Walterruss (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, and I'm not a member of that WikiProject (resigned in November 2012). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[undefined-1] Cite error: The named reference undefined was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 ::Really NC closes should be done by an admin - maybe we should make it official. If you are interested in being nominated please let me know and I will do some due diligence but I'm already minded that someone who does as much work in AFD as you do should be an admin and I found little to fault in a quick review of your recent closes but for the pressure of AFD its as well if I can review a good proportion of your recent closes for any skeletons. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 20:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 :::[[User:Spartaz]]: Thanks for your input. Regarding a new RfA, it's still in the "consideration" period at this time. I'm aware that at RfA, self nominations may be perceived by some as carrying less significance compared to nominations performed by others, so I appreciate the prospect of your interest in providing a nomination/co-nomination. Regarding non-admins performing no consensus closes, I feel that this should be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than in absolute terms, relative to each overall discussion, the experience of the closer, additional variables such as topics that may be perceived as controversial, and other various factors. To view my AfD discussion closes, check out my [[User:Northamerica1000/Discussion closures|Discussion closures log]]. [[User:Northamerica1000|NorthAmerica]]<sup>[[User_talk:Northamerica1000|1000]]</sup> 21:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
+::::I suspect you have seen me express this view enough over the years to know its a sincere position based because the reduced tool set for non-admins limits choices in closing outcomes and because NC is rarely non-controversial. I have reviewed your closes and for this reason I'm suggesting we make this official as you are already performing NC closes at the correct level. You would benefit from have thr ability to soft delete some of those marginal closes. (This is a rare wiki complement from me). [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 21:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 == The soup ==

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis

Revision as of 21:29, 30 September 2014

The final straw...

Starting a subpage

Summary

AfD Statistics for User:Northamerica1000

I'm shocked

The soup

I withdrew that AfD...

Contested AFD closure

DYK for Solar activity

headlines

DYK for Animatronics

This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2014)

Tech News: 2014-39

DYK for Lettuce soup

References for list articles

Hi.

Spam (food) Article Edits

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Wow.

DYK for Maccu

DYK for Cream of asparagus soup

DYK for Strolghino

Can you merge 2 Spi reports for me?

September 2014

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

Help

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3PB

This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2014)

Tech News: 2014-40

Help me create a Request for Comment asking that Jimmy Wales step down

Leave a Reply