User talk:Northamerica1000

This user prefers to communicate
on-wiki, rather than by email.

RfA

I just wanted to say something. Look, I don't like you, at all. We've not have good interactions, at all. However, I think you are a net positive to the project, I think your participation in ARS has been helpful and you shouldn't have resigned, and I think you exemplify everything a keep !voter at AFD should be when you improve the articles you are voting keep on. Your edit count might be slightly inflated, but those edits are spent improving articles so it doesn't matter. And your ability to find every last scrape of a source on a subject is quite impressive even if the sources don't always meet the threshold of WP:RS. Finally, I want to say that I appreciate the time you put into the project. I would hate to see your RFA discourage you from continuing to participate in Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 13:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hi NorthAmerica1000, you are probably looking at that RFA and feeling a tad shitty. I know I did for much of my first RFA. But RFA is a strange process, and I still think how bizarre it was that my second RFA was such a complete turnaround from the first. You've got the advantage that two of the main reasons why people opposed you are now resolved, and though that may not make enough difference to carry you through this time, it probably will by Easter. My advice would be to let this one continue to run, then forget RFA for three months. After that, have a look at it again, see if there are any problems that you haven't fixed anyway, and if you still fancy it have a run in March or April. ϢereSpielChequers 00:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• I want to echo what TParis said. I (and many others) appreciate the work you do for ARS and hope that rather than resigning, you will keep doing what you have done in the past. I've seen RfA discourage other editors for contributing, and hope that doesn't happen to you. Legoktm (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Please do not give up with ARS or your editing. Opposes and even supports voiced at RfA are often pertaining solely to what editors are looking for in a blocker or a deleter, not a content-creator. dci | TALK 19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW, I guess I don't agree with everything TParis says--I, for instance, see no problem in an admin being a member of the ARS. In your case, you felt pressured to quit it because a lot of editors hold that against you, but that is never a reason for me to oppose you or anyone, and I think those others, including my valued colleague TParis, are simply wrong. I do think that it's time to close the RfA, but that's up to you of course. I admire you, BTW, for having the balls to start it in the first place. Regards, Drmies (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• At this time, I'd prefer to let the RfA run its course, as useful constructive criticism has occurred there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, I never criticized NA1K for ARS participation; neither here nor on the RFA.--v/r - TP 14:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input. However, this won't change people's perceptions, as evidenced in comments at the RfA such as "Strong Oppose per the ARS issues TParis brought up." People skimming the discussion may see this and then simply assume those are the types of matters you brought up in your comment. Perhaps consider commenting there regarding this matter. Additionally, I would like for you to please respond to the comments I have placed there underneath your oppose !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ditto to what Drmies has stated. I also admire your work and your passion for the project. While I do not support your RFA at this, it may be something I could very well change in the future. I also hope this does not discourage you or change your desire to edit in any way.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Section break

• Hello TParis. I noticed at the RfA discussion (located here Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Northamerica1000) that you provided a brief response there, but chose not to address the actual content of my comments there. Your reply there was

“ I was asked to respond. I chose not to because these responses are not directed at me, they are directed at others. Have NA1K referred to me in 2nd voice, hence directing the comments at me, I'd surely feel part of a discussion where response was necessary. As they are directed at others, I feel this is indicative of the talking over others that I mentioned earlier. ”

TParis, notice how at the discussion I invited you to discuss matters on my talk page, and how in my third comment there I began it with "Hello TParis." Of course the comments were directed toward you. As a community discussion, others could have commented as well, if they wished. Seriously, please read WP:AVOIDYOU in entirety, where it states that wording comments in second-person is discouraged (e.g. "the word "you" should be avoided when possible.") It states there (in part):

“ As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people. ”

This is part of Wikipedia's No personal attacks policy page. I was simply being polite in my text at the RfA and respecting this policy. As an administrator on Wikipedia, you should become familiar with this policy; it appears that you may not be aware of it.

The reply you provided at the RfA is an argumentum ad hominem in entirety, in which instead of replying to good-faith comments, as I politely requested above earlier in this discussion, you conveniently changed the subject at RfA entirely, hand-waving and finger-pointing about wp:idht. The comments at RfA were plainly directed toward you, and you were asked here to respond to them at RfA. I welcome you to address my comments regarding your !vote at the RfA here on my talk page at this time, since the RfA has been closed. If you choose to respond here, please do so in a civil and respectful manner.

Lastly, please consider wording your commentary more politely and neutrally when communicating on Wikipedia. Statements within your comments such as “...I don't like you...” as you wrote above when you started this header on my talk page are impolite, and are counterproductive to the transpiration of functional discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You continue to not get it. Look, I came here to say that I respect your work even if I don't particularly like your methodology. However, many editors including me have brought up how you Wikilawyer and talk over others. This is a perfect example. You've brought up a policy about personal attacks. Discussion is not a personal attack and WP:AVOIDYOU isn't at all relevant. You can say 'you' all you want when talking to me. What that policy is about is saying things like "You're a fucking idiot" which would be a personal attack versus "A lot of fucking idiots around here" which is still disruptive but not directed at anyone in particular. You're getting the policy wrong. Even in your answers, you were quoting policies instead of discussing them. My argument was not at all ad hominem. I'm not sure you're even aware of what that means. An ad hominem argument is where I would say "Because you are an ARS member, you must hate puppies" which is ad hominem versus "You said puppies are ugly and disgusting." which is not ad hominem. Again, you're confusing things. This is exactly what I brought up in the RFA. The thing that gets me is that instead of saying "Yeah, you're right, I do do that sometimes," you try to justify (wikilawyer) your actions with policies that arn't even remotely relevant. But none of this matters because I came here to offer words of morale support. Even as someone who generally can't stand you, I respect your work and I'd not like to see you leave the project. Why else have I backed off since our spat on WT:AFD? I can argue with you in good faith. I'm not wishing ill on you. I'm genuinely being honest so maybe on your next RFA you can make a different impression on me.--v/r - TP 13:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, TParis. I will require more time to respond. I appreciate that you have responded, and I'll leave it at that for now. I'm not a prude, but please refrain from using swear-words on my talk page, because they tend to simply convey emotion rather than logic. Let's all work together to improve Wikipedia, now and into the future. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't using them to be abrasive, I was only using them to demonstrate a personal attack versus disruptive behavior.--v/r - TP 14:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello TParis. Re the above: "Discussion is not a personal attack and WP:AVOIDYOU isn't at all relevant." Of course discussion itself is not a personal attack. The point of WP:AVOIDYOU is to avoid wording commentary in personalized manners, and to direct commentary toward content and actions. Part of this is intended to avoid conflict on Wikipedia. By adhering to the information stated at AVOIDYOU, it serves to avoid creating situations from which people may interpret (or misinterpret) personal attacks within the content of commentary itself. Despite this, since you have stated above that you don't mind people using the word you when communicating with you, it's apparent that you aren't affected by stated writing style! Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDYOU is not about avoiding natural language. If you have that impression from reading it, then you've misunderstood it. It's purpose is to get folks to address content and not make things personal. That doesn't mean to avoid "you" in every form of speech. You can use 'you' without it being personal when you are directing comments at a particular person. But that's a secondary issue, the primary issue is that I've explained this already and you continue to quote policies literally rather than trying to understand their meaning. That's the problem when I was trying to explain to you a year ago why WP:NOT is not a notability guideline.--v/r - TP 14:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well of course, WP:NOT is a Wikipedia policy page. Perhaps revisit the comments I left at the RfA regarding this matter, and be sure to click-through to all of the links I provided therein. Why did you close the AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of golf courses in Portugal) you quote there in your link as keep? Dude, I entirely understand what WP:NOT is. It appears that you don't approve of the way a fleeting AfD !vote was worded over 13 months ago, and yes, my second comment there was worded quite incorrectly (I remember that I was very tired). There were absolutely some errors in my second comment in the discussion; again I was fatigued. So, yes, my second comment (not the !vote) in the discussion was incorrect, but it was a grammatical error based upon fatigue. Perhaps let bygones be bygones. I made some grammatical errors 13 months ago due to fatigue! That sure was a long time ago. That's only what it was; error due to fatigue. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I closed it as keep because there were 3 AfDs about golf courses that day and the discussion at this one led to keep and so I kept consistent with consensus. I don't consider " Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article is appropriate" a grammatical error based on fatigue. That was a blatant keep rationale based on a policy that has to do with what not to keep. It's still relevant because you still display the same behaviors. You cannot admit or accept when you are wrong. I cannot support a candidate who keeps circumventing others concerns instead of owning up. This isn't going anywhere so feel free to keep talking to yourself, you're not hearing me at all. You are impossible to discuss anything with because your sole objective is proving your innocence. So I'll just keep !voting oppose because you haven't improved in a year.--v/r - TP 16:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• It appears that you've misinterpreted my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of golf courses in Canada (that you linked in your comment directly above) due to simple matters regarding punctuation. Perhaps if I'd used a period after the word "keep", rather than an ndash, the comment would have been clearer. Notice how I started the sentence after the ndash with a capital letter, denoting that it was the beginning of a stand-alone sentence. Here's my entire comment there, "Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like 'Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics'. The article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles for notable golf courses." The capitalization of the first word following the ndash indicates that this is the beginning of a sentence, rather than an extension of the first word in the comment. In other words, the phrase following the word "keep" wasn't the rationale. Rather, the notion that the topic and article had a discriminate focus was the rationale. Perhaps I could have worded it differently and more succinctly, such as "this topic does not qualify for deletion under WP:NOTDIR." I admit that wording the beginning of the sentence as "Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article is appropriate..." was ambiguous and could have been worded much clearer. Also, in the comment, the policy page was referred to as "guidelines," but this was a simple typographical oversight made within the context of a fleeting AfD comment. (WP:NOT is a policy page). I had and have full comprehension of WP:NOT. Hopefully this clarifies matters for you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I already admitted making an error over 13 months ago due to fatigue. You choose to not believe, please assume good faith, or at least consider it. Yet again, when AfD nominations are incorrectly nominated under WP:NOT rationales, it is just to point out when the nomination is incorrect, and provide qualification for why a topic is not qualified for deletion per WP:NOT. Directly above, you're again relying upon ad hominen argument rather than engaging in productive discussion. I'm hearing you, I'm listening to you, but you're simply stating opinion without qualification (e.g. "It's still relevant because you still display the same behaviors"). How so? Where has this occurred? Do you perceive AfD nominations under WP:NOT as being able to be countered? I think you're being very overly-judgmental. Again, please read WP:AVOIDYOU; your style of interaction is rather crude; this isn't the military, it's Wikipedia. Even worse, you've made up your mind in advance about how you may !vote regarding a future RfA. Therefore, you have admitted to bias from this point onward. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Bias: "Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair." I have given you ample reason and plenty of my time discussing why I feel the way I do. Therefore, I do not feel I've been unfair not am I prejudiced. I gave you the benefit of the doubt during this discussion.--v/r - TP 19:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's the page: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, it documents an English Wikipedia policy. It's a policy. I know that. Over 13 months ago I made a simple oversight and mistakenly referred to it a a guideline page rather than a policy page. I've read it many times. To state that a person doesn't understand what's written on the page or doesn't understand its concepts in present tense because they mistakenly referred to the page as a guideline page over 13 months ago is absurd. I have full comprehension of what's on the page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Addressing my comments under your !vote at RfA would be functional. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In the past, I've sometimes been overly verbose in discussions, although the intention was and is never to talk over others. I've been wording commentary in a more succinct manner for quite some time now, and will continue to do so when functional. Sometimes when discussing detailed topics or subjects, extended discussion can yield significant light. Also, in some instances, people have many significantly differing viewpoints about controversial topics or subjects and don't always reach immediate agreement or consensus. In these instances, sometimes extended discussion actually serves to clarify and better-qualify people's stances, from which point consensus can be determined. That said, your opinion regarding this particular matter is understood, and the compliments regarding my work to improve the encyclopedia are appreciated. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have improved but you still use overly technical or complicated words that arn't used in natural speaking. While definitely acceptable, it gives off a bad vibe.--v/r - TP 14:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Depends upon one's definition and perceptions of what "natural speaking" is, in contrast to what it isn't. Quite subjective. Value judgments such as "bad" are contingent upon one's perceptions and judgments along with their personal values and beliefs, and are also often relative to situational variables. Thus, weasel words such as "bad" are also quite subjective per this context. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. But it's tanked RfAs before so perhaps your subjective opinion isn't matching up with others.--v/r - TP 16:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello TParis. You seem to have a belief that all Wikipedia editors and administrators should have a standardized mentality and writing style, along with an immediate deference to authority, like people in the military are trained to behave. In the world of academia and knowledge, though, this doesn't always fly, and can actually serve to limit the proliferation of knowledge in the free medium of Wikipedia. In the world outside of life in a military career, people are often much more diverse, and people are unlikely to cozy up to your authoritarian style of interaction, because although you are an admin here, you're also just a person. I am beginning to surmise that your communication style may be partially based upon your being a staff sergeant in the U.S. Air Force, because part of the duties of being a sergeant in the military is to have such a stance. Perhaps you should consider the notion of trying to respect people more based upon their positive contributions, rather than consistently searching for things to complain about. I remain open-minded about continued communication with you, because it's in my nature. Perhaps take some time to calm down; the style of your comments indicates hostility at this time. Afterward, feel free to communicate here in a calm, rational and civil manner. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If my behavior didn't read as calm, then you read it in a tone of voice in your head that did not match the tone in mine. As you said, assume good faith. Being an NCO doesn't have anything to do with what I do on Wikipedia, actually, not even in my behavior. Besides, I've given you several compliments in the last couple of days; a show of respect for your positive contributions. Perhaps I'm not the one who needs to calm down.--v/r - TP 19:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Here's the intro section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, an English Wikipedia policy page.

"Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not."

It's a policy page that delineates what Wikipedia is not. Many examples are present there regarding what Wikipedia is not, and the page covers matters regarding style and format, content and community. I have full comprehension of this page's content, purposes and its applications, in entirety. Period. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ouch

As someone who endured the significant stress of a very successful RfA, I can only imagine that "a tad shitty" is a borderline insulting understatement for how you feel about this, especially after having contributed so much to the project. The simple fact of the matter is that strong concerns brought up by widely-respected and/or influential users are very hard to ignore and will tank any RfA. People skimming the comments will certainly be swayed by editors like TP or Worm even being in the oppose section. The good news, though, is that you have a good reputation overall and many editors (including myself) appeared predisposed to support you (we do like you). This moral support will not go away and you should be heartened by it. I seriously hope you will consider giving RfA another go down the road. You essentially get a clean slate after a failed RfA. Your entire editing history is on the table for your first RfA. In a second one, however, only contribs that follow the first RfA are fair game. Just take the next 3-6 months to demonstrate to the community that you understand the concerns raised and have clearly rectified any problems. I really do believe you have potential for adminship in the future, and I'd genuinely like to see that happen. Most importantly, though, please don't be too disheartened by this. Even if you vow never to go near RfA again, you're still a valued editor and should keep doing what you're doing. Best, Swarm ^X 04:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to provide your perspective. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Productive input

The RfA provided valuable input from Wikipedia's editors and readers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice on recently edited article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher J. Howell

Thank you for your review of my submitted article "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher J. Howell". As I am a beginner and will continue to read up on tips to get this article approved I wanted to ask you since you reviewed the artilce what additional pointers/tips and major problems you saw with the article. Thank you for your time! JordanJAH (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Jordan Hora.

• Hello JordanJAH. I noticed that a draft of this page is located at User:JHora/sandbox, which was created on 14 October 2012‎. Is User:JHora another user account that you created? It appears that the submission was possibly copied and pasted from User:JHora's sandbox to your sandbox page (located here: User:JordanJAH/sandbox), although this is not showing up on your sandbox page's revision history. I notice that another editor then moved information from your sandbox page to the Articles for creation entry, although the submission was already present at Articles for creation prior to the move (see [1]).

The article needs to include sourcing and inline citations to verify information within it and qualify the topic's notability. I've performed some page layout changes to the submission (located here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher J. Howell) to assist you with the article. Check out Wikipedia's Manual of style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout regarding article composition and page layout. Also, check out these Wikipedia's pages regarding the sourcing of Wikipedia articles: identifying reliable sources and adding inline citations. Regarding copyright matters on Wikipedia, please be sure to read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. There are also these pages that provide useful information regarding topic notability (see WP:N) and the verification of information in articles (see WP:V). Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted both the AfC page and the sandbox as copyright violations from [2]. Compare e.g.

"As the sole TV Host and Executive Producer of "Man Talk", a talk show designed to evangelize, encourage and empower men, Howell utilized his ability to create relevant and thought provoking topics concerning men."

with

"As the sole TV Host & Executive Producer of Man Talk, a talk show designed to evangelize, encourage and empower men, Mr. Howell utilizes his ability to create relevant and thought provoking topics concerning men."

and

"Some of his guests included: spiritual leader and New York Times best-selling author, Bishop T.D. Jakes, author and First Lady of The Potter’s House Serita A. Jakes, President & CEO of Williams Fried Chicken, Hiawatha Williams, and Football Hall-Of-Fame inductee Michael Irvin."

with

"Some of his guests include: World-renowned spiritual leader and New York Times Best-Selling Author, Bishop T.D.Jakes, Author and First Lady of the Potter’s House Serita A. Jakes, President & CEO of Williams Fried Chicken, Hiawatha Williams, and Football Hall-Of-Fame inductee Michael Irvin."

Fram (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Fram, nice work in copyvio detection. Regarding this (now deleted) submission, I utilized Copyvio Detector, over 15 Google searches to detect copyvio by copying and pasting text from the submission into Google, and other searches, all of which showed no sign of copyvio. I also searched for whether or not this person had a homepage, but it didn't initially show up on Google searches (see this Google search, one of the several searches I utilized).

In this Google search, the link you provided above doesn't currently show up until page 9, and wasn't found because I didn't look this far into the search results, only to about 6 or 7 pages. After this, the likelihood of this person having a home page seemed unlikely, per Google's superior search algorithms, which would usually list the site earlier on in its results per relevance to the search criteria (which in this case is the person's name). Upon continued scrolling up to page 20 of the Google search, the link on page 9 is the only link for anything from www.chrishowellonline.com.

I did notice that the composition of the submission had a promotional tone, and was concerned about potential copyright violations due to an increased likelihood of the submission copy being sourced from promotional websites.

Perhaps the link you provided doesn't appear until page 9 of the search because of the manner in which "online" is at the end of the person's name ("chrishowellonline.com"). If a search for the person's website isn't listed until page 9 on the Google search, searches for text within that website will naturally occur even further out in the Google search results. At any rate, nice work in detecting copyvio, and rest assured that all of your advice is appreciated. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I found the page by posting ""designed to evangelize, encourage and empower men"" in Google search. Often, with people whose name isn't that unique, you can improve the search by adding a key pharse for them, e.g. [3]. Fram (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. However, the likelihood of AfC reviewers utilizing these types of exacting searches to try and find copyvios to this degree is very slim at best. I notice you've commented at the WikiProject AfC talkpage, and as you're aware, I've started discussion threads at WikiProject Articles for creation in hopes to improve matters regarding copyvio detection. It would be a shame for people who work there to help the encyclopedia to be denied adminship in the future due not detecting copyvios by utilizing extended research such as yours, particularly since there's currently a serious lack of functional instructions on the Reviewing instructions page for the project. It's important to realize that not detecting copyright violations that are difficult to find is certainly not the same thing as writing them, not by a long shot. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I tried to be clear at your RfA that you have not written any copyvios as far as I am aware, and that you are not moving copyvios to the mainspace knowingly. But the AfC (not only you, also DGG and others) need to be more careful, and if that means doing more manual work instead of relying on the technical tools available, then so be it. being slower and having a larger backlog is less of a problem than publishing copyright violations, and going through the AfC certainly gives the impression of Wikipedia giving these articles a "stamp of approval" (similar to DYK articles which turn out to be copyvios). It will never be failproof, e.g. straight translations, or copyvios from offline sources, are obviously much harder to detect, but there are too many articles slipping through the cracks now. Fram (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(This is intended to be sarcastic humor). Perhaps if I just discontinue helping out at WP AfC altogether, chances of future adminship would be improved. Of course, this would be somewhat cowardiced, but many new admins don't participate there whatsoever! Due to this non-participation, chances would be improved, because this equates to a lessened likelihood of criticism. Participation there appears to have a direct correlation with lessened chances of serving to help out the encyclopedia with administrative duties. Maybe I'll focus more on participating at AN, ANI, Requests for closure, etc. instead! Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, you have a point. When you do nothibng, you can't make any mistakes. Of course, when you really do nothing, you can't become an admin either... But sticking to areas where one has more expertise and is less likely to make too many mistakes can be considered a strength needed in admins of course, and perhaps AfC wasn't the best area for you in that regard. But these aren't easy decisions or things to advice one, it could equally be that after three months of ANI participation, you have blown any chance of ever becoming an admin (or lost any appetite for it), such things are hard to predict. Fram (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, many current admins don't participate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation either! Why is that? Should they fear being de-sysoped if they make errors in the detection of hard-to-find copyvios? This would certainly deter admins from participating there! Seems like no matter how one looks at it, participation in that WikiProject can be problematic, which is no fun. When participation isn't fun, people stop participating. Perhaps we can work together to improve copyvio detection matters there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have quite advanced skills in copyvio and plagiarism detection. Sometimes searches don't yield exacting results per people's locales, sometimes Google flounders, sometimes search engines yield different results, sometimes Copyvio Detector doesn't find them, and sometimes Wikipedia editors may not perform hundreds of copyvio searches for one AfC submission. Regarding the latter, the average editor at WP AfC is quite unlikely to take it to this extreme. Even if they do, nobody will have a 100% success rate in detecting them, though, unless perhaps they spend a truly disproportionate amount of time working to find them for just one AfC submission. AfC is routinely severely backlogged, which naturally lends to a lessened likelihood of people spending enormous amounts of time in hopes to detect copyvios for one entry. Hopefully the assessment page at WP AfC regarding copyvios will be improved soon, as I have proposed on the talk page there. People should all be held to the same standards regarding this very particular matter, regardless of whether or not they're editors, possess administrative tools or desire adminship. The bar should be identical for all. Perhaps people at WP AfC should be warned that if they fail to detect a copyvio, chances of adminship will be severely diminished? Or even worse, place a warning there to alert people to avoid the project if they're interested in future adminship, as participation in the project can significantly reduce chances of adminship acceptance should any errors in copyvio detection occur? Of course not; just improve guidelines for copyvio detection at the project, as I've proposed on the project's talk page! Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

After consideration, contributors to WikiProject AFC should have fair warning, so I've posted a comment there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Fran,

1. I regard your G12 as incorrect. G12, according to WP:CSD is appropriate only when the entire article is copyvio, and we often extend the interpretation a little to where essentially all the article is substantially copyvio. This does not appear to me to be the case; rather, it looks like isolated sentences have been improperly used. This requires removal of the material, or, if scattered through the article, blanking, but not deletion of the article. Were it an article on NPP we would list it on copyright problems, but we have not I think used that for AfC, and it would in many cases be excessive, considering that most article at afc would not be accepted in any case. (For one of the instances where I was careless, this was exactly the case: not all the article was copyvio, but the article was in any case not worth working on.) For the other two errors of mine you caught, one was in missing one of many internal pages, and the other was just lack of sleep on my part in not spotting on the face of it that it was overwhelmingly likely to be copyvio.
2. Anyone checking for copyvio will miss things. . It is easy with copyvio to make errors in both directions, and I regard an incorrect judgment of something to be copyvio almost as wrong as missing one. (After all, a missing one will be caught by somebody else, but the editor of an wrongly deleted article is likely never to return.) Our true defense against copyvio is the same as for other problems: multiple eyes.
3. The afc process is so flawed that in my opinion it needs to be redone from scratch. I've made many criticisms there. Those of us who are trying to work there are dealing not just with poor material, but drastic errors in assessment in all directions, of which the most common is to find only one of many problems, and often not the most important one; the most frequent is saying inadequate references for notability when the true message ought to be hopelessly non-notable--the person simply adds another inadequate reference and resubmits, which helps neither them nor anyone, and multiplies the work. But we need reviewers there so urgently that it is necessary to help them learn, not blame them.
4. The appropriate message to someone missing a copyvio is a note telling them about it so they see what to look for, not a general accusation of carelessness. What the detector ought to feel is pride at their own accomplishments, not scorn for the other party. Were I an inexperienced editor, your saying at multiple places at wp in the last 2 days that i was missing copyvio might, as NA said, have caused me to leave afc altogether. As it is, I know perfectly well , just as NA knows, that I am pretty good at it. I probably miss a few percent, and I do not really expect to work at higher accuracy in anything, especially at the speed necessary in WP. You partially specialize in this, and therefore I expect you'll do a little better than I. As it is, I know that when I differ from you on how to handle copyvio, you are right about 2/3 of the time, but I am right the other 1/3. Even when I am right, I've learned it is unproductive to argue them with you. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

GOCE November 2012 copy edit drive update

Guild of Copy Editors November 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 31 people signed up for this drive so far, 22 have copy-edited at least one article. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Template:J Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive. We have reduced our target group of articles—November and December 2011—by over 50%, and 34 of the the 56 requests made in September and October this year have already been fulfilled. However, the rate of tagging for copy edit has increased, and this month we are just keeping the size of the backlog stable. So, all you copy editors, please do come along and help us! The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest was won by Baffle gab1978 for his copy edit of Expulsion of the Acadians. Runner up was Gareth Griffith-Jones for his edit of I Could Fall in Love. Congratulations to both. The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight November 30 (UTC). You don't have to make a submission to vote! November 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight November 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. Seasonal oversight: We had a slight fall from grace in the title of our last newletter, which mentioned the season in the northern hemisphere and thus got it wrong for the southern. Fortunately an observant GOCE member was ready to spring into action to advise us. Thanks! In future we'll stay meteorologically neutral. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyshriol

Hi- I found more cruft from the same series: Eubians, Rhon psion, Ruby Empire, Skolian Empire. I believe they should all be merged into Saga of the Skolian Empire (with some reduction). Need some help: would you be willing to nominate these other four articles? You might be able to include them as part of the same AfD to make it easy. I'll do the merge if there is consensus for the bunch. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Rather than nominating the other's for deletion, you can simply 1) perform a bold merge with redirects, 2) Start merge discussions for the articles. Simply merging and redirecting could be the best way to go, and could consolidate all of the information in one place.

In the event of merging, attribution to the articles from which data was merged from is required to be in place is required, due to Wikipedia's licensing requirements which require proper attribution. For more information, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Merging. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I just don't want to get caught up in a debate with fans or worry about it being undone later. An AfD will pave the way and make it unambiguous. See Category:Saga of the Skolian Empire. Many of those redirects were previously articles that went through AfDs. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roca Skolia (2nd nomination) (a 4-article nom). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I always research matters regarding topic notability prior to nominating articles for deletion, per section D of WP:BEFORE, which takes time. At this time, I don't have the interest to perform all of the research for those articles to assess and determine the notability for each respective topic. It's easier to simply perform merges and redirects. If another editor disagrees, this also allows the option of them to undo the changes and improve the stand-alone articles. If you choose to nominate them for deletion, deleted content is usable in a merge provided that proper attribution is provided, per the "Reusing deleted material" section of the Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia page, where it states (in part) "If an article is deleted, its history is removed and thus its content cannot be reused on Wikipedia—even under the same article title—unless attribution is otherwise provided (or the page undeleted)." Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

• News and notes: FDC's financial muscle kicks in

• WikiProject report: No teenagers, mutants, or ninjas: WikiProject Turtles

• Technology report: Structural reorganisation "not a done deal"

• Featured content: Wikipedia hit by the Streisand effect

• Discussion report: GOOG, MSFT, WMT: the ticker symbol placement question

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Chasamsofer.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:Chasamsofer.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 12:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)