User talk:Northamerica1000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
   Location dot blue.svg Content created & contributions       Location dot blue.svg Accolades received       Location dot blue.svg Promoted DYK nominations       Location dot blue.svg Upload log 
   Location dot blue.svg Discussion closure log     Location dot blue.svg XfD log       Location dot blue.svg CSD log       Location dot blue.svg Prod log   
Wikipedia This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at

Current time and date (UTC)
  LED digit 3.pngLED colon.pngLED digit 5.pngLED digit 4.pngLED pm.png
October 2, 2014}}
(Purge to update)

The final straw...[edit]

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? Stlwart111 01:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Stalwart111: Thanks for your support in terms of a potential adminship nomination, which is much appreciated. I need more time to fully consider this proposition, so I'll respond at a later time in this thread with a specific answer. NorthAmerica1000 11:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course - no rush. A nomination may be better coming from someone else (I haven't ever nominated someone at RFA before) with a co-nom but I'm happy to find that person. Take all the time you need and please know I won't be offended if you decline - it has to be the right thing for you. Stlwart111 23:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

AfD Statistics for User:Northamerica1000[edit]

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

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

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

I'm shocked[edit]

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

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

The soup[edit]

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

Hi User:Hafspajen: I've recently created several soup articles, so clarification to which article you're referring to would be appreciated. Face-smile.svg NorthAmerica1000 11:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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

(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)
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)

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

(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)
WEll, it was probably original res from my side, then. Face-smile.svgHafspajen (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
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)

[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)

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

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't know...

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)

Tech News: 2014-39[edit]

09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lettuce soup[edit]

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

References for list articles[edit]

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)

(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)
Hi User:Wavelength: In addition to the above MOS link, below are more links to peruse.
Also see WP:MINREF, "When you must use inline citations". Hope this helps you out. NorthAmerica1000 14:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
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)


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

Spam (food) Article Edits[edit]

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)

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. Face-smile.svg 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).
 – NorthAmerica1000 03:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
Hello User:Northamerica1000! I am in the group with Mwong850 and would just like to express my thanks for your help! We're all new to Wikipedia editing, and find it very cool to interact with such helpful contributors like you. We will be editing the Spam article in the coming few weeks, and as Mwong850 mentioned, anymore feedback is welcome! Best, Tkw32 (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(ping: User:Mwong850, User:Tkw32, User:Lhe3460, User:KathyQX94)
Thanks for the kind words; at this time, I'll provide any additional input about the article at its talk page, at Talk:Spam (food). Also feel free to keep in touch here too. Happy editing! NorthAmerica1000 12:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25[edit]

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)

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


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)

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

DYK for Maccu[edit]

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

DYK for Cream of asparagus soup[edit]

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

DYK for Strolghino[edit]

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

Can you merge 2 Spi reports for me?[edit]

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)

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

September 2014[edit]

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)

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

The Signpost: 24 September 2014[edit]


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)

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3PB[edit]

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)

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)

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

IAH Aerial.jpg

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

Tech News: 2014-40[edit]

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Acquacotta[edit]

Hi, I found this hook in the "quirky" slot of Prep 3, and felt that it really deserved the lead slot with a picture. However, now that I moved it to Prep 4, I don't think the hook is so hooky. I'm wondering if we could change it to something like:

ALT1: ... that acquacotta, an Italian peasant food, was originally invented to make stale bread palatable? Yoninah (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Yoninah: How about this ALT2 below, which incorporates content of the original hook and your ATL1 above. It's within the 200 character hook limit, and briefly includes information about the soup's history. NorthAmerica1000 05:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Acquacotta soup

ALT2: ... that acquacotta (pictured), an Italian peasant food dating to ancient history, was originally invented to make stale bread palatable?

DYK for Cream of broccoli soup[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-Admin AfD closures[edit]

Hello: I think you are over stepping the guidelines on non-admin closures with all of these no-consensus results. I'm not alone on this, based on a review of a few of the conversations above. I suggest that you stop and request a review of this practice. The guidelines for non-admin closure seem pretty clear that it should only be done on non-contentious cases. By default, one could argue that no consensus is contentious. Creating a AfD takes work on the part of the nominator and having it closed prematurely without due process is disruptive. Kindly, Gaff ταλκ 15:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Gaff: Which AfD discussion are you referring to? I never close discussions early except in clear WP:SNOW cases or for those that are procedural in nature. I base my closes upon WP:NACD at the Wikipedia:Deletion process page. Only one user above has stated that they prefer non-admins to not perform no consensus closes as an absolute, but it's their opinion, not policy. Such closes are certainly allowed per WP:NACD. Presently on this talk page, there's another request to reopen a discussion per disagreement with the close, which I did upon that request. It was shortly closed again thereafter with virtually the same close that I had performed. I think you should please consider these matters on a case-by-case basis, rather than in absolute terms. NorthAmerica1000 23:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, I disagree with the notion of all no consensus closes being characterized as "contentious" in nature. For example, see this discussion, which I closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination due to having received no input after two relistings. I don't view this close as contentious whatsoever. NorthAmerica1000 00:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
MrGuye has been nominating everything under the sun for deletion, so not surprising nobody weighed in on the absolute peach. I've not been on here much in several years. When I was doing non-admin closures back in the day, I steered clear of no consensus closures, especially if only one person had cast a !vote, with what sounded like a perhaps not entirely an unequivocal keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rakesh Khanna As far as that article goes, I still think that the snippet about him having a job with the company was appropriate/sufficient on the company's article page. Nevertheless, it did get stale waiting for a debate. I'm not going to repost to AfD or ask for a review, because ultimately, I just don't care enough and have better things to work on. So, maybe my posting above comments on your talk page is a knee jerk reaction on my part... As far as other comments above about closures on AfD, see "I'm shocked" and "Contested AFD closure". If the backlog is so bad that you feel your services are truly necessary for closing AfDs before they get a real discussion, then you could just put in your RfA. Gaff ταλκ 00:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Gaff: Some points regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rakesh Khanna
  • Simply put, the discussion was not closed prematurely. It was closed appropriately after two full relistings. Please see WP:RELIST, part of the Wikipedia:Deletion process guideline page, which states "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice." (underline emphasis mine)
  • There was clearly no consensus regarding a particular action for the article relative to the arguments at the discussion. You wanted it deleted, and two users wanted it to be retained. Overall, the rationales presented therein were not strong enough to close the discussion as "keep". So, I appropriately closed it as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination.
I understand that you want the article deleted, but per the discussion, it's virtually certain that it won't occur at this time. Per the WP:NPASR close, feel free to renominate it at any time. NorthAmerica1000 01:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Sounds very reasonable. Cheers Gaff ταλκ 02:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi Roy Smith! I've never used this message function until now but am just simply wondering why you deleted this CRITICAL page? -

Thanks so much Roy and looking forward to hearing back from you when you have a moment ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:8500:B62:34A4:775F:F87E:E0E2 (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Pinging User:RoySmith about the above (the message was sent to the wrong user). NorthAmerica1000 23:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia at the team sports international competitions. There was clear consensus to delete the article by the people who participated in the discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Wine sauce[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)