User talk:Northamerica1000

Northamerica1000 Topics My mailing list Promoted "Did you know" articles My notepad My talk page templates page My accolades page

Northamerica1000 is presently taking a semi-break from Wikipedia. This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify) This user prefers to communicate on-wiki, rather than by email. General information This user believes in peace, love and happiness. Part of Wikipedia New articles created Karabti San Beloglazovo Djarkhan Loshchinka Ookteechenskaia Parhomovka Quotes “ The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. ” — Arthur C. Clarke “ If you have everything under control, you're not moving fast enough. ” — Mario Andretti Sources Could you please tell me why have you deleted the article about Soul Button? Hello Northamerica1000! Could you please tell me why did you delete the article about Soul Button again? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Button The page was previously reviewed and approved in May 2019 by Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the admin with over 13 years of experience on Wikipedia, who made over 3,090,500 edits and who wrote more than 30,000 articles. After that, the article was nominated for deletion by Ceethekreator and went through two weeks of discussion without anyone telling that the article should be deleted, but you made a soft-delete back then, without telling the reason. I explained you why I thought that was a mistake and you agreed with me and restored the article. So the article was previously reviewed and approved by two admins, Ser Amantio di Nicolao and you. Unfortunately, the article was nominated for deletion again on July 26, 2019 by Duffbeerforme, who nominated more than 55 articles for deletion so far. In a short discussion full of weak evidence Atlantic306 said that Soul Button is not notable because he doesn't have a page on AllMusic site, which is not true. There is a page about Soul Button on AllMusic: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/soul-button-mn0003258951 , but even if there was no page about him, as we discussed before, Soul Button is not only a musician, he is also an entrepreneur who runs three record labels with more than fifteen artists. Today, on August 2, 2019, you deleted the article without any explanation and before the discussion was ended. Could you please tell me why didn't you wait for the discussion to finish, for seven days, so the other users can tell what they think? It is also important that the article got over 2,000 views so far, which means that people are interested in the subject and that they are coming to Wikipedia to read about it. Some users said in the discussion that the article is promotional. If it is, why couldn't they just edit it? I would like to continue contributing to Wikipedia and to that article, but it is really discouraging for me if I need to prove the same thing so many times. Could you please consider restoring the article again so it can be improved by me and anyone else who wants to participate? Thanks! All the best NMGS19 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC) I said he doesn't have a bio on AllMusic which is the case, he only has a short listing. Also the article was very promotional and you are responsible for fixing it not other editors, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Also, the discussion had run for the full seven days and was not closed early Atlantic306 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Thanks for the prompt reply Atlantic306! I appreciate it. I didn't use AllMusic previously, so I didn't know the particulars about the site and types of pages there. I would like to have a chance to fix the article, but it is currently deleted. However, anyone else can edit any article, including this one about Soul Button, so I thought that if anyone thinks something should be different, he can change it. I am also improving articles that were created by other users, so I thought if there is something wrong with my article, someone will maybe tell me this or fix it, but I definitely didn't expect to see the article removed. Anyway, thanks again for the clarification! I hope the article will be restored and that I will be able to improve it. NMGS19 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Hello @NMGS19: Here's a rundown of events: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Button, the article was soft deleted. This occurred after the discussion was relisted two times. You did not provide any independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage in the first discussion. Please see WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO for an overview of what qualifies notability on English Wikipedia for people and musicians. Since the article was WP:SOFTDELETED, I WP:REFUNDED (restored) the article to main namespace, per your request to do so here After the article was restored, you did not improve it to demonstrate notability by adding necessary source coverage to qualify an article. The article was then nominated for deletion again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Button (2nd nomination). A consensus formed there that the subject is not notable per Wikipdia's standards of notability. There were also serious concerns there about the article being promotional in nature (e.g. " Bombarded with shops, listings, PR and interviews, nothing good for GNG. PR complete with official portrait from his label", "...this atticle is so promotional it reads like an advert and could well qualify for G11". In the event you're not familiar with speedy deletion criteria, see WP:G11 for more information. The Allmusic listing does not provide significant coverage at all; it does not qualify notability on English Wikipedia. Furthermore, per utilizing the find sources template below, it does not appear that the subject has received any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Per all of this, I am declining to restore the article again. Sorry about this, but I cannot buck the consensus for the article to be deleted. I hope this does not deter you from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia; it is my hope that you will continue to contribute. North America1000 00:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – August 2019 News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019). Administrator changes Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000 CheckUser changes RickinBaltimore Oversight changes Beeblebrox RickinBaltimore Guideline and policy news Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page. A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy. Arbitration Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them. Miscellaneous Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist. Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Portal:Mathematics sort key in Category:Mathematics I thought there was a convention that Portals, although they should be in the named category, should have a greek letter sort key; or at least "*" (indicating principle list) rather than " " (indicating principle article). Of course, I could be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Hi @Arthur Rubin: I've been using the vertical bar and a space for years, and so have many others from what I've seen. Doing so sorts more specifically on category pages, typically in the same area that the main article is listed, before the article list begins with the alphabetical sorting. That way, the portal is not listed in the articles under the category, which serves to differentiate the portal from articles. Also, it would be my guess that folks who browse categories are typically looking for related articles, rather than portals. North America1000 11:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC) M Mail. AmericanAir88(talk) 12:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC) "Portal:New Mexico" listed at Redirects for discussion An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:New Mexico. Since you had some involvement with the Portal:New Mexico redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 34, 2019) Hello, Northamerica1000. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Bianca Wahlgren Ingrosso Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Great Spirit • Organ (anatomy) Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Portal views I've basically retired but occasionally follow discussions elsewhere. I just wanted to say: please don't fall for the trick of comparing portal views to article views. Articles are wikilinked: Smith was born in California doesn't lead to a portal. Articles appear in search results; portals don't. Almost all incoming links from other sites lead to articles. The system ensures that no portal, however perfect or broad, can stand a snowball's chance in hell of approaching its article's pageviews. This fact might be used as an argument to scrap the entire portal system, but any attempt to use it to show that an individual portal is below the general standard for portals is a gross misrepresentation. Certes (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC) @Certes: Well, you can always un-retire later, right? I can't spend much more time thinking about page views for now, it's making my head hurt. Seriously, though, I have agreed at BHG's talk page to utilize the average daily page views when citing page views for portals at MfD discussions, since this is essentially the MfD status quo at this point. Another user has also provided input there and elsewhere why this is the preferred method. It's fine, no problemo. I'm actually very good with statistics and mathematics, although it's not my life's goal. Ultimately, I'm not here on Wikipedia to stir things up in a negative manner; it's easier to go with the flow. For what it's worth, in the real world, where money is involved, true numbers are the best numbers. Rounding can be bad for business, because at times it can interject an ambiguous, overgeneralized figure that deviates from actual diverse figures at various points in time in too inaccurate of a manner. The use of rounding even has the potential to place people into a higher tax bracket, depending on how it's applied (e.g. see this article). Also, the use of averages in the business world and other arenas of the world can be harmful and even devastating: check out this excellent article here from Harvard Business Review for more information, if you're interested. It's all good. Folks at MfD on Wikipedia prefer to use averages to describe page views, which I fully understand, in part simply because it's much easier for people to work with as a general guide. Ultimately, since citing the average figures are the status quo at MfD, might as well go with that. I wasn't even looking to challenge this at all; my experience in the real world is based upon analysis using true numbers, because it typically leads to more accurate analytical conclusions. However, Wikiworld is not the business world. It appears that you saw the discussion where I mentioned comparing the page views of various portals as a metric to potentially determine whether or not a portal receives adequate page views relative to WP:POG's criteria for attracting adequate readers. I still think that this is a valid comparison to at least consider. However, the groupthink that has been occurring at times at MfD against this comparison prevents its use. It could be because the differences between article and portal page views is much more divergent and extreme, which makes it easier to get portals deleted compared to comparing portal page views. MfD has essentially become a deletion warehouse for portals at this point anyway, and some folks become bitter when various facts are presented that conflict with a potential inherent bias for deletion from the start, regardless of page views, or POG for that matter. However, this is just simple banter, and truthfully, I really don't care too much at this point. At AfD, we have rather standardized guidelines such as GNG and SNGs, whereas the criteria at WP:POG was ultimately unilaterally added by one user in a passing edit. See below in the hatted box for more information, if you're interested. This simple addition of content from one user's point of view, which was weakly challenged, eventually stuck anyway. There was actually no community discussion or consensus regarding POG; it's just one guys opinion. It's too late now, though, since most of the portals are gone anyway. – The inherent problem of WP:POG's lead being decided upon by a single user – At its inception, the page never received actual formal discussion to be enacted as a real English Wikipedia guideline page. Instead, label Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines as an information page using the {{information page}} template. There are many reasons why. The gist of the lead for the portal was added subjectively and unilaterally by one user in 2006 (diff), and no discussion appears to have actually occurred about it until relatively recently. Guidelines should be decided upon via consensus, not by a unilateral addition of content from one user. Meantime, the page has been treated as an actual guideline, despite the content being based solely upon one person's opinion, which furthermore, was added to the page at its infancy. Furthermore, the page was shortly thereafter marked as historical (diff), with an edit summary stating, "{{historical}}, not an active proposal per lack of talk page activity; suspect lack of advertisement". After this, and importantly, the historical template was removed (diff), with an edit summary stating, "removed historical tag; this was not intended as a proposed Wikipedia Guideline, but merely guidelines as in advice for portal creators." (Underline emphasis mine). Per the diffs, the page was not even intended as a proposed guideline from the start, and no consensus was ever formed for the content therein. The page was intended from the start as an information page. It's actually rather a farce that the page was somehow converted to a guideline page, because there doesn't appear to be any meaningful discussion leading to that change. It's like someone just slapped the Guideline page template page on it and it just simply stuck thereafter, sans any consensus. Furthermore, the lead of the present WP:POG page is worded as an illogical and bizarre syllogism. Some users have been stating that if a portal does not receive what they deem to be adequate page views or maintenance, then the topic itself is somehow not broad enough. Of course, this standard could not be used anywhere else on Wikipedia, because people would reject this as absurd. For example, the Physics article does not receive a great deal of page maintenance, yet the topic itself is obviously broad in scope, both in terms of the topic itself and in terms of the amount of related content available on English Wikipedia. The manner in which this syllogism is worded on the page is subjective and inferior, and has been misused to define topical scope as based upon page views and page maintainers, rather than upon the actual scope of a given topic. People sometimes ask why links to portals are needed in articles, in other portals, on category pages, etc. Your observation makes perfect sense. Unless someone is specifically searching for a portal in a search on the Wikipedia site, they likely won't see them. They're much more easily found using google. Oftentimes, even searching for a portal on-wiki won't lead to any valid search results, unless a user knows to type-in "portal:Foo". Furthermore, I've heard that portal links in articles don't appear on mobile phones unless the inline form of the link is used. For what it's worth, I'm always open to discussion about matters, and I also possess an ability to change my mind, particularly when evidence is presented that is congruent with best practices on Wikipedia overall. North America1000 17:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC) Tech News: 2019-34 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available. Tech News There will be no Tech News issue next week. The next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 2 September 2019. Problems Some abuse filters stopped working because of a code change. Only variables for the current action will work. Variables defined inside a branch may not work outside of that branch. You can read more to see how to fix the filters. Only six accounts can be created from one IP address per day. Between 12 August and August 15 this was two accounts per day. This was because of a security issue. It is now six accounts per day again. [1] Changes later this week Only a limited number of accounts can be created from one IP address. An IP address can be whitelisted so that it can create as many accounts as needed. This is useful at events where many new persons learn to edit. IP addresses that are whitelisted for this reason will also not show CAPTCHAs when you create accounts. This will happen on Wednesday. [2] The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 August. It will be on all wikis from 22 August (calendar). Meetings You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 21 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join. Future changes There is an RFC about creating a new global user group with the right to edit abuse filters. This will be used to fix broken filters and make sure all filters will still work when software changes happen. You can read more and comment. Special:Contributions/newbies will no longer be working. This is because of performance reasons. It showed edits by new accounts. You can see this in the recent changes feed instead. [3] Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. 15:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)