User talk:North8000: Difference between revisions

Hi North8000, You recently reverted my short description at Lake with edit summary Undid revision 861570863 by Pbsouthwood (talk) Unsourcable because "surrounded by land" often incorrect. Also confusing using basin in a way that is different than comonly used for lakes. which I find baffling as it was a summary of the lead sentence, which was referenced. I would also be most interested to know of examples of lakes which are not surrounded by land, which you claim is often the case. Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: Here's what I wrote there after someone reverted me:

Well, to start with, every lake that has either a river inlet, a river outlet is not "surrounded by land" . And, if one chooses to ignore rivers, those with larger connections to another lake (e.g. Lake Michigan, Lake Huron) ocean (e.g. Lake Borgne in Louisiana) are also not "surrounded by land". My partial fix (reversion of an addition which further entrenched this error) was reverted....with the only explanation given that my "not always surrounded by land" edit summary sounded silly. I'll just work elsewhere rather than get into anything painful trying to fix it.

My slight ire was directed at them, not you. Thanks for your work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Technically I suppose you are right, but the book definition that I remember from school was that a lake is water surrounded by land, and there is the point of what constitutes surrounding, whether it requires a 100% enclosure or whether small gaps are acceptable. Anyway no worries, we can leave it at that. I was expecting something more exotic. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Loyal Order of Moose, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Shenphen Rinpoche

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shenphen Rinpoche. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Boeing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boeing. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. North8000 (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chick-fil-A

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chick-fil-A. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anne Akiko Meyers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anne Akiko Meyers. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

holes

Yes, many metals have both electron and hole bands, such as aluminium. Some have more conduction due to holes, and so a positive Hall coefficient. See: Talk:Electric_current#Positive_Hall_coefficient for some examples and discussion. Gah4 (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Thanks. North8000 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ron Stallworth

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ron Stallworth. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done North8000 (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Aniston

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Aniston. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Mojo & The Bayou Gypsies) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Mojo & The Bayou Gypsies.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Thanks for your well-developed new article on Mojo & The Bayou Gypsies.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: Thanks for your post, compliment and work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decision tree learning: revision 871814793

Hi North8000,

You undid revision 871814793 (Decision tree learning). In this revision I prevented aggression from user ForgotMyPW, who just permanently removes information. You can see that revision 871814793 isn't related to any "multi-article aggressive promotional campaign", and only restored published earlier information about robust method (published, cited). Could you, please, don't support this war against users of Wikipedia and revert this commit back during the next day.

Truly yours Michael Bree (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my answer is that if you still think that it is a useful addition to the article, discuss it in the talk page of the article. The entire edit history of your account is three edits, two are insertion and re-insertion of that item and paper, the third is this post on my talk page. And the spamming attack on those articles has consisted mostly of bunch of accounts who have done the same thing, and have a lifetime edit history or 1 or 2 edits, those being insertion of that item. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sammi Giancola

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sammi Giancola. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bekir Fikri

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bekir Fikri. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Huggums537

Hello,

As you know I have been considering this users unblock request. One of the restrictions I am considering as part of this unblock request is to have editors "monitor" his edits (look at them to check them) to ensure that he is not slipping back to what got him blocked in the first place. Would you be prepared to do this?-- 5 albert square (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd be happy to. I think that that type of an individual (well intentioned but still learning) could benefit a lot from that. North8000 (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - I'm just waiting on the response of one other editor :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, Thank you very much for your support! It has been a great comfort just knowing someone has been there all this time. Thanks so much for sticking with me! Huggums537 (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be tough if need be. North8000 (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks for your agreement to be a monitor. Huggums537 (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a monitor, what are your thoughts about my recent lengthy comment to my talk page regarding some objections I have to the restrictions? I want to maintain good relations with the reviewing admin while standing up firmly for my freedoms at the same time so I don't get walked all over like a door mat. It's a tricky situation, I think. How am I doing? Huggums537 (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Xmas!

Merry Christmas North8000! Thank you for helping me to rejoin you just in time for this wonderful holiday on here! Best wishes for you and your loved ones! Huggums537 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And a Merry Christmas to you! Welcome back and have fun! North8000 (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

	Merry Xmas
	Merry Xmas and Happy New Year! Thanks for all your help :) 5 albert square (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!

Hello, North8000! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello North8000: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, 5 albert square (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Please comment on Talk:Matthias Corvinus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Matthias Corvinus. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. North8000 (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oswald Boelcke

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oswald Boelcke. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ice bear redirect

I'm a bit unclear about your revert at polar bear to remove the hatnote for the ice bear redirect. In your edit summary, Not even polar bear, and too specific and redundant to disambig page if it was, did you mean that ice bear should be changed to not redirect to polar bear? (It was a redirect that I did not create.) Or did you mean that a reader looking for Ice Bear or Ice Bears (disambiguation), but mistakenly entered ice bear (case and plural difference) instead should figure out their mistake themselves? Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post. Here's my thoughts. If you do not agree, would be very happy to sort it out in talk at the article and would be happy with whatever the discussion ends up as. This is an article on a very prominent topic. You basically added these three things to the disambig place, the top of the article

Notification that "Ice bear" redirects to this article,
Where to go if one is interested in a character from a particular TV show named "Ice bear)
Where to look for other uses of the term "Ice Bear"

IMHO: On #1, it is not normal or needed to say what has been redirected to this article. On #2 and #3, disambigs are for the topic of the article and #2 and #3 are not the topic of the article. Again, if you disagree, happy to have a discussion in talk and go with whatever the outcome is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Per the redirect guideline WP:R#ASTONISH, If the redirected term could have other meanings, a hatnote (examples) should be placed at the top of the target article or targeted section that will direct readers to the other meanings or to a relevant disambiguation page. I'm not a polar bear expert, but I never thought of ice bear as being synoymous with polar bears before seeing the Wikipedia redirect. Another option is To just change ice bear to be a disambiguation page (or redirect to one) instead of it going to "Polar bear" directly as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts but I'm perfectly happy however it ends up. I'll just step back on this.....feel free to change it per your discretion or else bring it up on talk. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, i will add it back per the WP:R#ASTONISH guideline. Likewise, feel free to start a discussion on the article talk or elsewhere if you think WP:IAR should apply to Polar bear, or that consensus should change on general hatnotes for redirects. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bagumba's edit is generally helpful, and would support it in a discussion. The only part that seems a little off to me is saying that "Ice Bear" redirects here. Maybe that part is not needed since that message is already automatically generated if someone reaches the page by searching for that term. That is why it would be redundant. So, I can see exactly what North is saying there. Other than that, I think it's a helpful edit within the guidelines. Could you maybe modify it to take the redundant part out? I do like the fact this came up because the idea of creating a redirect to a disambig is something I had not considered before until now. So, this conversation is provoking some fun ideas for me to consider. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huggums537: FWIW, those templates are standard and oft-used, so I'd recommend continue using them for consistency. If any changes are needed (WP:CCC), perhaps bring it up at WT:R so changes can be implemented across the board.—Bagumba (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, bringing it up at WT:R or the like would probably be a great idea considering there is kind of a conflict with the redundancy that needs to be resolved there. However, I would not be the person that would be able to do that right now considering my current editing restrictions. Thanks for the suggestion anyway... Huggums537 (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about how the article ends/ended up, but just to add a note to the discussion, this presumes that enough people were looking for a character in a TV show to discuss it at the top of the Polar Bear article. The character has only a zero-reference section in an article where the whole article has a tag questioning it's existence on notability grounds. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

North, you bring up a very interesting point that maybe not that many people are looking for a TV character. However, I think that is just the most wonderful thing about Wikipedia, that you might find something you totally didn't expect and learn something you totally didn't know just because you came here to read about polar bears. For example, I had absolutely no idea that anybody in the world referred to these creatures as "ice bears" until now. Isn't Wikipedia great! Huggums537 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Kätlin Aas

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kätlin Aas. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done (at AFD) North8000 (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pamela Geller

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pamela Geller. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Help updating Girl Scout Cookies

I've been trying to update the current list of cookies on Talk:Girl Scout Cookies#Trios discontinued, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of activity over there. I have a COI with the Girl Scouts of the USA, so I'm refraining from editing directly. I saw you're a member of WP:SCOUT and I was hoping you might be able to take a look. If you have time, could you check it out? I'd really appreciate it.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and respond over there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with that! I've got some other changes to the article that I'm currently working on. Would you mind if I reached out to you to take a look when I have them ready?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to, I'm flattered.North8000 (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I actually managed to finish up my sandbox today! If you have a minute, could you take a look? I left a more detailed description of the changes on the GSC talk page. Thanks!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good at first glance but if you are thinking about us updating the article by deleting the current one and pasting in the one from your sandbox for many reasons I don't think that is a good idea. Editors there often want to see what the changes are, and except if they want to invest a large amount of time doing a "compare and contrast" between the versions they are unable to see that. Second, with normal editing of an article it's possible to go back in history and see how any individual piece evolved. Not so if a whole 'nother version is substituted at once. Next, it sort of makes it a one person article instead of a collaborative effort. Finally if you are thinking of me subbing it in, I'm not comfortable with the for the above reasons plus I'd want to see what the changes are and an unable to unless I invest a large amount of time doing a "compare and contrast" between the versions. But I'd be happy to put in individual changes that you come up with. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey there! I wanted to thank you again for the continued effort you've put into helping me with the Girl Scout Cookies article. I believe I tagged you over there, but I wanted to ping you here for visibility as well. Btphelps offered a great version of the lead section, and if you're still interested I'd love any additional feedback you have.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. @FacultiesIntact: I got a couple pings 5 & 6 days ago and didn't notice requested edits in those; no pings since. Happy to go have a look. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rihanna

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rihanna. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi,

Just wanted to say thanks for your assistance with Huggums -- 5 albert square (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, thanks for asking. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suki Waterhouse

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Suki Waterhouse. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done North8000 (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Killing of Aya Maasarwe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Killing of Aya Maasarwe. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shabir Ally

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shabir Ally. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Swedes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Swedes. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Bain & Company

Hi North8000.

Just wanted to see if this was still on your radar. No rush - just checking in. CorporateM (Talk) 14:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot! Thanks for the reminder...I'll do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:PCCW

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:PCCW. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Libertarianism in the United States

Hey, I'm sorry for this edit and replying only now. I thought it would have been a good addition, althought my edit could have been done wrong. As it stands now, it really is the history of right-libertarianism and of the Libertarian Party in the United States. It completely ignores the fact libertarianism originated from the left (even in the United States, where is the only country were libertarianism is not synonymous with libertarian socialism and anarchism) as individualist anarchism and libertarian socialism, among others. It also missed many center-left and other variants as well which are not right-wing. I wish the history section could have added of all this and I wanted to, but I did not really know how to start, so I decided to make it more like a schools of thought section. I did not know it would have been a problem taking bits from their respective pages. In all similair schools of thought section I saw it was done it that way, just taking bits of their respective intros to make it a summary. I thought it could have been a start to improve upon. --79.36.167.52 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @79.36.167.52: Thanks for the post and your efforts. There has been like a 8 year struggle trying to figure out how to cover libertarianism. I've been raising the subject at the libertarianism project but it seems inactive. Apart of it is that the word essentially has two different meanings (in the US and elsewhere), almost (but not quite) to the point of being two different topics. (the same goes for the word liberal and liberalism) The top level libertarianism article has lots and lots of coverage of the various strands, and there are individual articles on the strands. There are also articles on various two word combinations with libertarianism in them including some classificatoin schemes (right libertarianism and left libertarianism) which appear to have no consistent definition. I think what's missing in all of the Wikipedia libertarian coverage is coverage of actual current practice and also actual current common meanings of the term. IMO articles like Libertarian ism in the United States are the place to build this. I'm afraid that I have to disagree at four levels with your addition:

Copying in a large amount of material from existing articles is itself an issue in Wikipedia.
That also constitutes a verbatim duplication of a large amount of material that is in other articles.
Wp:undue. Vaguely speaking, the vast amount of what libertarianism is and was in the US is mostly re-named classical liberalism.
IMO this is the most important guide; there's little or nothing about the US (e.g. libertarianism in it) in the material that you put in.

Thanks again for the message and your efforts. It's great to find a fellow live body on libertarianism articles. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

First of all, thank you very much for your reply and kindness for explaining me all of this. I agree with you wholeheartedly and understand, you have been really clear and helpful, so thank you again. I knew it could have been reverted, but I thought it would have been still worth a try to at least start a conversation about it. I knew that libertarianism in the United States is basically used in the mainstream as synonimous for classical liberalism. But what kind of classical liberalism? The actual 19th century liberalism which in many ways runs counter to them as they opposed any economic privilege, including privileges accorded to capital; and not all such liberals supported laissez-faire? Or the invented 20th clssical liberal tradition as a reaction to the welfare state which was already a reaction against socialism/communism to save capitalism; and in which classical liberals were a monolithic who supported laissez-faire at all time? I find it especially funny that modern libertarianism in the United States refer to classical liberalism (20th century anti-New Deal liberalism) when the term libertarian was coined by libertarian communist Joseph Déjacque in a critique against Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, whom Déjacque considered a liberal! Despite the fact that today the United States is the only country in which the term libertarianism is not a synonymous for left-libertarianism but instead of right-libertarianism, Déjacque himself published in New York in the 1850s and 1860s a journal called Libertarian. So even in the United States, the only country where the word is assoiated with right-libertarianism rather than left-libertarianism, it still started off as synonimous for libertarian communism. Unfortunetly for him, it did not take hold and with the First Red Scare the early classical libertarian history in the United States was all but forgotten and so the term libertarianism was invented as a synonimous for classical liberalism. Correct me if I am wrong, but at least that is what my reasearch and study led me to think, as far as I know.

Of course, I know the classical liberalism referred here is the 20th century tradition, but I still find it quite funny and interesting. Indeed, the whole history of libertarianism, especially in the United States, is rather interesting. Especially because unlike elsewhere, left-libertarianism is associated with libertarian socialism and the like, but in the United States is more associated with a libertarian form of liberalism/progressivism, Georgism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school which would be better called center-left libertarianism. However, all the page talked about was pretty much right-libertarianism and classical liberalism. Maybe my edit would have been more adeguate for a new page called Libertarian schools of thought, much like the Anarchist schools of thought. So rather than just make it like a schools of thought list, I should have added more about its origins and its relations to left-libertarianism in the history section. Because the so-called individualist anarchists who inspired modern libertarianism in the United States were anti-capitalists, libertarian socialists and left-libertarians, or more correctly just libertarian since the right-wing variants did not yet fully developed.

Now, I could be wrong and I understand they may not all called themselves libertarians, but from what I understood by libertarian they meant like the libertarian axis in the Political Compass or similair, because to them anarchism was indeed libertarianism and viceversa as synonimous, so for all these stated reasons I think it could be added and the history section extended to reflect this too.--79.36.167.52 (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 79.36.167.52. Thanks! You got into a lot of areas there. Too much to just get into here, this would be a great thing to work on during collaboration at this and related articles. So, PLEASE stick around and work with me and others on the articles. You know the areas that you are discussing better than I do. I think that I may have some insights to add to the party, particularly related to Wikipedia articles. If I may introduce those points briefly:

Writing is to communicate, and so the common meaning of words is very important when using them to communicate. It's also very important to include common meanings when writing an article on those words, which is somewhat the case with libertarian articles.
If the European English used the word: "Green" for 660 nanaometer wavelength light "Blue" for 550 nm light, and the American English words are exactly the opposite, in an article written for both of them, we should not use the words "Blue" and "Green" to teach about 660 / 550 nanometer light is, although we should what the European and American meanings of those terms are. This is somewhat the case with the words "libertarian" and "liberal"
IMO the terms "Right Libertarian" and "Left Libertarian" are even worse in that respect. Those terms are pretty much absent in the US, and seem to have no consistent meaning elsewhere. My opinion would be to have only brief articles on those terms, describing the common meanings of them, and to not use those terms to define anything libertarian.
Libertarianism in Europe has some long and complex philosophical roots, and varying strands. This really isn't the case in the US. Here it'm mostly a "phenomenon" and a general current meaning and usage of the term, and a distant second to that would be the US Libertarian party. So in the article on libertarainism in the US, we should confine ourselves to sourcing that mentions the US...this would keep it focused on actual US libertarianism.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rigel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rigel. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DoneNorth8000 (talk)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018 Strasbourg attack

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 Strasbourg attack. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Decline in insect populations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Decline in insect populations. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done North8000 (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lady Louise Windsor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lady Louise Windsor. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

doneNorth8000 (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done North8000 (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Falun Gong

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Falun Gong. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:China–United States trade war

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:China–United States trade war. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Call You Mine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Call You Mine. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking system

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Guardian

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Guardian. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done North8000 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antifa (United States)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antifa (United States). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done North8000 (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Main Page

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Main Page. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

New Constitution

I noticed that on WP:FRAM you added a section about creating a constitution to solve certain problems. While I somewhat disagree with the framing (I would think that the rules governing how editors interact with the content and each other would be more "constitutional" than those governing our relationship with the host organization), I do think it's important to clarify certain fundamental issues. To start, I began a discussion in the Idea Lab about the scope of Wikipedia self-governance. I'd appreciate it if you could weigh in there. Thanks. --Yair rand (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. BTW, my idea was even bigger than that. Replace the current constitution that governs WMF with one that is not as prone to such problems. Take out self-elected board members, for instance. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

But happy to go there and see if I can help. North8000 (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rachel Campos-Duffy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rachel Campos-Duffy. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done North8000 (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done North8000 (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Christgau

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Christgau. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Please comment on Template talk:Timelines of Chinese history

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Timelines of Chinese history. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done North8000 (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kodomo no Jikan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kodomo no Jikan. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done North8000 (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of terrorist incidents

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of terrorist incidents. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done North8000 (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:IHeartRadio Canada

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:IHeartRadio Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done North8000 (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox film. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done North8000 (talk)

Please comment on Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Emilia Clarke

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emilia Clarke. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done North8000 (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done North8000 (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Libertarianism contributions

Thank youǃ :) And apologies for that; I was still working on it and wanted to publish it by several smaller edits but accidentally clicked on Publish changes. Anyway, I don't think the 90,000,000 people example works; Wikipedia works by reliable sources and I agree with Pfhorrest's comparision to football, etc. Also, as I stated elsewhere, I don't think there's a strict, or even single, definition for any political philosophy, yet Wikipedia uses a definition on what reliable sources generally agree with. There're "lots of things under discussion [that] are social constructs and fuzzy contentious abstract concepts", yet they're still discussed about and have some generally agreed definition that we put on Wikipedia as that's what reliable sources generally agree with. It's my understanding that Wikipedia doesn't represent the truth, or any objective truth, but rather verifiabilty based on reliable sources; and isn't a dictionary. Right-libertarianism refers to the Rothbard-Nozick et all tradition that came out from 19th-century libertarianism while American libertarianism is the 20th-century libertarianism that developed as a revival of classical liberalism in the United States after liberalism became associated with the New Deal. Yet, both are American libertarian, but not all American libertarianism is right-libertarian, hence why we have two pages describing two similar, correleted, whatever you want, but still different concepts that are worth or notable; just like we have articles of different strands of other philosophies like socialism, liberalism, conservatism, etc.--Davide King (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davide King: Thanks for the message. Although I do have an opinion on the current questions, I'm not overly concerned how the current questions get decided. My main goal is just that there be a good process and one that moves forward to some type of conclusion. I do want the libertarian articles to end up informative. I also though it helpful to point out that when trying to cover a very large, vague and mild phenomena (e.g the "90,000,000" in the US) that trying to place such in a family tree of highly thought out and fully developed ideologies (a concept which is useful way to define and understand other forms of libertarianism) and to try to define it by such is going to be less informative. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but I would like for you to tell me more about it. What's your understanding of it? What should it be about? Libertarianism in the United States includes the libertarianism "developed by anarcho-capitalist author Murray Rothbard, who based it off out of 19th-century libertarianism and American individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner while rejecting their labor theory of value, substituting it with Austrian School economics and the subjective theory of value" and the "libertarianism that developed as a revival of classical liberalism in the United States after liberalism became associated with the New Deal", i.e. "conservative on economic issues (economic liberalism) and liberal on personal freedom (civil libertarianism), often associated with a foreign policy of non-interventionism". It also include "anarchist and libertarian socialist tendencies, although they are not as widespread as in other countries". Do you disagree with any of that? All idelogies are like this. Socialism (democratic, libertarian, social democracy, etc.), liberalism (social, classical, etc.), conservatism (social, national, liberal, etc.) and so on. We don't have any article that talks about liberals or conservatives as a voting demography; we have pages that talk about their movement and the ideology, why should it be different in this case? You're free to create a Libertarian (U.S. political typology), or liberal, conservative, etc. You're also free to create a Libertarian schools of thought where we talk about the terms, what they mean, etc. This shouldn't cause us to not edit, so I'm restoring this lead and see if any other reverts it or disagrees with it.--Davide King (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davide King: I don't disagree with anything that you said. It is just the if one limits themselves to the "lens"/ "toolbox" that works for European libertarianism (history, ideology, geneology),or pushes the article strongly in that direction it is not going to be informative on the main points of libertarianism in the US and be more confusing than informative. . North8000 (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's why we have Libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States, for which I boldly added a new summary to the lead. Please, don't revert it (you can tell me your thoughts, what can be changed or improved about, etc.), let's wait and see first if anyone else revert it too or disagree. Libertarianism originated from 19th-century anarchism and we can't just act like one hundred years of history didn't happen. American libertarianism developed out of that tradition but mainly in the 1950s and it wasn't until the 1970s that became a real thing.--Davide King (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davide King: I had already looked at it and decided not to revert. Again, a giant bundle of IMO good stuff and bad stuff. The worst was deleting the most important data, that on people self-identifying as libertarians and having libertarian voting patterns. Why did you delete that? Either way I figured that can be updated and fixed later. North8000 (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you tell me what are the good and bad stuff so I can try to improve that? What exactly are you referring to? Are you sure? I'm sure I didn't delete anything, I only added infos. "Through twenty polls on this topic spanning thirteen years, Gallup found that voters who are libertarian on the political spectrum ranged from 17–23% of the American electorate.[20] However, a 2014 Pew Poll found that 23% of Americans who identify as libertarians have no idea what the word means.[21]" This is still in the lead. "Circa 2006 polls find that the views and voting habits of between 10 and 20 percent (increasing) of voting age Americans may be classified as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal, or libertarian".[91][92] This is based on pollsters and researchers defining libertarian views as fiscally conservative and culturally liberal (based on the common United States meanings of the terms) and against government intervention in economic affairs and for expansion of personal freedoms.[91] Through 20 polls on this topic spanning 13 years, Gallup found that voters who are libertarian on the political spectrum ranged from 17–23% of the electorate.[20] While libertarians make up a larger portion of the electorate than the much-discussed "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads", this is not widely recognized as most of these vote for Republican and Democratic Party candidates, leading some libertarians to believe that dividing people's political leanings into "conservative", "liberal" and "confused" is not valid.[93]" Ths is still as it was before, but in the 21st century section.--Davide King (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davide King: My biggest complaint was removal of that material, but it looks like you really didn't remove it. Because it was in that giant bundle and I wasn't able to figure that long-distance shift out in the amount of time that I had available. I like the majority of the work that you are doing. You are doing such a massive amount of changes so quickly, and packing them into such large bundles that it is not possible for a Wikipedia editor with the normal amount of time to donate to review them or revert any small areas where they disagree. In addition to the advice I gave you on your talk page (briefly, that you would be less likely to get reverted if don't do that on articles where such changes are likely to be a topic of conversation or debate) to put it more directly, you are editing in a way that prevents the normal process of other editors reviewing your work. It also keeps me from thoroughly handling this dialog with you, which I am enjoying. All that said I'm glad that you are here and working on the libertarianism articles. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean more like this? I did that too, but I was told to make less small edits and to keep them in one; then I was told to make it smaller, so I didn't know what was too small and what too big. Anyway, thanks and I hope we can keep working on it and improve it together. :)--Davide King (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davide King:Cool.North8000 (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Field is not a science fiction show

Hi North8000,

You recently reverted my edit to the article Artificial neural network with the motivation "is to a science fiction TV show episode." However, if you look at the Mind Field article, you see that the genre is education and science, not science fiction. I have redone my edits. If you still think my edit should be undone, please provide a valid motivation. —Kri (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kri: I don't think that that link should be in there but don't plan to re-remove or argue the point. Thanks for the message and your editing efforts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

May I just ask, why don't you think so? Maybe you're right and that it for some reason shouldn't be in there, but if so I would like to know what that reason is (especially if the link is violating some Wikipedia guideline). I put it there because I think it is an interesting experiment that turns an otherwise quite abstract construct into something very tangible, so the video (or parts of it) can be used for educational purposes, but everyone is entitled to their opinion of course. —Kri (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kri:This is one of a group of articles which have been having a lot of problems with reference/external link spamming. In short where where the there is more happening to help give prominence to a non-prominent source/site than to assist the reader. Being a youtube video/channel this has the look of that. Inclusion doesn't flat out violate any policy that I know of but insertion also doesn't fall under of the normally intended uses. But I'm not unhappy or upset over the inclusion. I just decided to step aside on the question. My thinking is that if nobody else objects, it's probably a fine inclusion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Thank you for your explanation. —Kri (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Aphex Twin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aphex Twin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done North8000 (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Be well at Christmas

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Thanks! And I wish you the same. North8000 (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

From the editors: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again

News and notes: What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages

Special report: Are reputation management operatives scrubbing Wikipedia articles?

In the media: "The fulfillment of the dream of humanity" or a nightmare of PR whitewashing on behalf of one-percenters?

Discussion report: December discussions around the wiki

Arbitration report: Announcement of 2020 Arbitration Committee

Traffic report: Queens and aliens, exactly alike, once upon a December

Technology report: User scripts and more

Gallery: Holiday wishes

Recent research: Acoustics and Wikipedia; Wiki Workshop 2019 summary

From the archives: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited (re-revisited?)

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

Op-Ed: Why we need to keep talking about Wikipedia's gender gap

WikiProject report: Wikiproject Tree of Life: A Wikiproject report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This relates to the degradation of discussions at Talk:Libertarianism. Not certain that it directly involves you as none of your comments were in the section that I hatted. --Ryk72 ^talk 04:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to stay out of the drama side. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I've just asked for an uninvolved admin to have a look over the discussion; hoping that it will be steered back onto discussing content, not contributors. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning an informal study

Hi there. I was conducting an "informal" study on the usage of Portals on Wikipedia, and for that reason, I've come to ask you a few question:

How often do you use Portals?
Which Portals do you visit (if any)?
How useful do you find them?

Apologies for wasting your precious time on Wikipedia. P.S. It's all fine with me if you don't want to answer these questions. Ambuj Shukla (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ambujshukla2004:Thanks for the inquiry. I'd be happy to answer:

How often do you use Portals? Never
Which Portals do you visit (if any)? None
How useful do you find them? Never of use to me.

The modern search engine era has pretty well replaced such methods of finding information.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC) @Gerda Arendt: A belated thank you! North8000 (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi North8000. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Boy Scouts revert

Since the Scouts have changed their policies over time, I found the headings "Support" and "Opposition" confusing. In the article as I found it, and as you reverted it, the "Support" section describes support for the old, original policies, not support for the current policies that have been in place for multiple years now. I found that confusing. Also, i think articles are supposed to reflect current reality.

I'm ok with being reverted. What I want is to find consensus with you about what a non-confusing heading should say. It would be simpler if there was just one issue (eg homosexuality), then we could say "Support for excluding homosexuals" on one section, and "Support for including homosexuals" in the other. But we also have issues about in/excluding girls, and atheists and non-deistic religions.

How would you briefly and neutrally caption these? Perhaps just "Support for excluding people"? Or is that not neutral enough for you? What distinguishes the factions in your mind? Gnuish (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnuish:Well trying to get more specific, besides a challenge of wading into NPOV challenges is also going to wade into a lot more complexities. Regarding the policies themselves, I think that "homosexuality related policies" would be NPOV and then let the wording establish the era that is being covered. Thus avoiding trying to characterize or paraphrase the policies which is a whole 'nother minefield regarding exactly what they were and weren't. But the added complexity is that a substantial portion of the the support described in the paragraph is generally of the BSA itself or of the BSA's right to set policies in that area rather than of the policies, . The current concept of just having a top level "reaction" section and simply splitting in by "support" and "opposition" is sort of a cop out but does get it done. I'm going to try to put in an intro section under the top level section that might help / provide context for the subsections. ....see what you think. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm watching this group of articles

A group of articles targeted by an aggressive promotional campaign. They were partially protected and then the protection expired. Now it appears that the campaign has expanded to additional articles. I'm trying to build a list and watch to see if it warrants further action.

Artificial intelligence Pending changes protection circa 12/10/18 12/12/18, 12/12/18 (both stopped by pending changes) 12/24/18 lower key 1/24/18 Unrelated type 3/26 part of campaign
Artificial neural network 11/30/18 1/10/19 5/14/19 (this one looked different)
Binary decision diagram 11/21/18 by (now-indeffed) account whose only edits were that insertion in multiple articles.
Chi-square automatic interaction detection 6/17/18, 8/12/18 1/5/19 (low key and seperate)
Decision tree About 8 times July 2018 Same edit June 9, 2019
Decision tree learning About 10 times July 2018 11/21/18 by (now-indeffed) account whose only edits were that insertion in multiple articles. 12/3/18 Editor blocked as sock, article semi-protected through March 4th March 9th, the usual, and by a new account with 4 edits March 11th, the usual by an account with 3 edits. March 14th again, same account . March2020 two insertions of the same edit.
Decision tree pruning 1/1/19 3/1719 Same campaign
Deep learning 11/7/18 by (now-indeffed) account whose only edits were that insertion in multiple articles. 12/12/18 12/24/18 lower key 1/10/19 borderline 1/28/18
List of important publications in computer science 11/7/18 by (now-indeffed) account whose only edits were that insertion in multiple articles.
Machine learning11/7/18 by (now-indeffed) account whose only edits were that insertion in multiple articles. 12/9/18 12/11/18 12/12/18, 12/12/18 12/24/18 lower key 1/19/18 3/13 /19....routine commercial link.
MNIST database 12/4/18 4/9/19 same edit 5/9/19 same edit 5/29/19 same edit
Mean absolute percentage error 12/9/18 12/11/18
Nonlinear conjugate gradient method One questionable added by an IP who randomly followed me and reverted giving vague complaint messages,
Pruning (decision trees) 12/2/18
Predictive analytics 4 times July 2018, then protected
Random forest 11/21/18 by (now-indeffed) account whose only edits were that insertion in multiple articles.
Regression analysis 12/9/18
Statistical classification Twice in June/July 2018. Three times May 19th & 20th 2019 Same ole edit and editing campaign

North8000 (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Edith A. Moravcsik

Hallo North8000! Please be specific about why you want to delete this article. I note that this article is about a living human being and many things will come to light after his death. Then you can expand it better. In the meantime, it's worth the wait. currently:

There are articles in 2 other languages
there are resources.

What's wrong? --Crosstor (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC) Dates = of 99% sure linkspamming or advertising. I started this 12/3/18but looked back for a few[reply]

Hello @Crosstor: Thanks for the post. First what I "want" to do is simply to do my new article curation / review job properly. I don't "want" to delete the article, I just feel that the correct thing to do was to submit it for review by the community under the AFD process. I did provide the following explanation at the article talk page:

Reviewed under Wikipedia's new article curation / review process. Thanks for your work on this article. As a part of Wikipedia's new article review / curation process I just reviewed this article. In my opinion, this topic, to the extent visible in the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines which is a requirement for existence of a separate article on a topic. This guideline is described at WP:Notability and in the specialized guidelines linked at the beginning of that page which provide somewhat of an alternate. The core element of wp:notability is that there are some independent published sources which covered the topic of the article in depth. The article has only one source, and it is a directory type listing of her. Also, without such coverage to draw from, the article is just resume type material. I have nominated the article for review under Wikipedia's "Article for Deletion" process so that the community may decide.

The above makes the specifics pretty obvious for someone who has read wp:notability. Possibly you haven't read it yet? I'm not sure what is missing. If sources exist of the type required (independent published secondary sources which covered the topic of the article in depth.), you should put them into the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Concerns after reviewing Raihan Merchant under Wikipedia's new article curation / review process

Hello North8000! The article fulfill all Wiki policies, and that's why you have passed the notability requirement. Wikipedia is a source of unbiased information about a diverse body of knowledge. This article presents a new subject that people are interested about. In the true spirit of this platform, there must be no other consideration as long as the article meets the requirements of notability and presents sufficient sources. My status as an independent individual contributor need not be questioned based on any 'circumstantial evidence'. I have the utmost respect for Wikipedia and its editors, and wish to be counted as one, albeit a very inactive one. Sharan Shias (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharan Shias: Thanks for the post. My only goal is to do my job properly. I will have to disagree with your statement structurally. First, regarding existence as a separate article, compliance with both wp:not and wp:notability is required; I felt that the topic passed both of those and passed it, even though it (and the subject's company) had been rejected by others before. My potential undisclosed COI editing concern arose from on third edit under your user name you created the entire article with references, with you obviously having had more Wikipedia experience than those two very tiny edits before that. Also the situation is such that him having an article plus your attempted creation of an article on his company (which the community decided to delete) provides commercial benefit to them which. combined with other aspects, raised concerns about undisclosed paid editing which Wikipedia is trying to deal with generally, beyond the existence/non-existence of any particular article. I noted that several had previously raised concerns about this and editing under multiple accounts on your talk page.

Second, Wikipedia has standards and goals beyond just those governing the existence of a separate article, so I would disagree with the "there must be no other consideration" statement. The content note that I made was that it reads like a resume. These notes are to try to help give a nudge improve the article. When reviewing the references I noted that there is other material on him besides the resume type items. One "two bird with one stone" advice would be to try to expand and evolve the article using that material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenghilan

Thanks for your response. I hope this Tenghilan article can be improved more in the future. Best wishes NikoUMS (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creating AfDs - and your signature

Hallo, When you create an AfD like this one, please don't sign it until the end of your post. When I hover over the "discussion" in a list like this one, all I see is "Reason". If you hadn't signed it in the middle, I'd have seen at least the start of your argument, enough to make me decide whether to follow the link and look at the AfD discussion or just move on. I thought at first that perhaps you had created the AfD first with "reason" and then gone back to give more detail, but it seems that you did it all in one edit, with the problematic premature signature. Thanks. PamD 08:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Thanks for the heads up, including on why it's important to fix. From the discussions at new article curation, it's a malfunction of the new article curation tool, where it creates the first line but completely "loses" the "'reason" when entered in the proper place. So then I've been entering the "reason" a second time. The highly experienced folks know workarounds for the malfunction (e.g. using twinkle instead) that I don't. So I've been manually fixing it after the AFD page is created. More recently I've been deleting the bot-generated signature but based on the info in your your post I'll work that issue more thoroughly. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, North8000. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

MrClog (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Rice

North8000 -- Thank you for your reply. How, then, should I modify the entry for 2043 in order to pass muster? Please advise. DavRice (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DavRice: Hi David, as it says on my user page:"I like helping newbies, especially ones who are experts in their fields but are having trouble understanding Wikipedia....." That's my only interest, nothing to do with any particular page or article. It looked like you could use a little advice in a Wikipedia area that is often confusing to people that are new to it. If you like to understand Wikipedia more in this area I would read these two policies: WP:v and wp:nor which are two of the 3 important policies to read. I'd also be happy to help with any specific questions. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

David Rice

Hello, North8000 -- Thank you for your reply. I am a little confused. On 2040s page, I got a response from HiLo48 -- but here also a response from yourself, North8000. I asked HiLo48 if he and you were known to each other and both working together -- he says no. So what is the situation. Is there more than one editor responsible for this? Or some overlapping? Please advise. Thank you -- David RiceDavRice (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See above.North8000 (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

News and notes: Unbiased information from Ukraine's government?

In the media: Coronavirus, again and again

Discussion report: Redesigning Wikipedia, bit by bit

Featured content: Featured content returns

Arbitration report: Two difficult cases

Traffic report: Disease the Rhythm of the Night

Gallery: Roy is doing fine and sending more photos

Recent research: Trending topics across languages; auto-detecting bias

Essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing

By the numbers: Open data and COVID-19: Wikipedia as an informational resource during the pandemic

Opinion: Trusting Everybody to Work Together

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

Interview: Health and RfA's: An interview with Guy Macon

In focus: Multilingual Wikipedia

WikiProject report: The Guild of Copy Editors

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Rice

Hello, North8000 -- Thank you, I appreciate your note. I have read up on the two areas, and replied in some detail to HiLo48. With thanks -- David RiceDavRice (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion

You submitted Mehki Raine for deletion and it has since been deleted. I had been editing it after your submission to make improvements and save the article and I believe the proper corrections were made to make the article credible but the deletion discussion was not updated after the edits. Is there any way the article can be restored? Bleu444 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bleu444: The question was not the quality of the article. The question is whether or not the topic complies with wp:notability requirements for existence as a separate article. This requires either meeting the sourcing requirements of wp:gng or meeting the special requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Meeting Wikipedia:Notability (music) appears very unlikely which leaves meeting the sourcing requirements of WP:GNG. For that you basically need two independent published sources that have discussed the artist in depth. If / when you have found them you can simply recreate the article but include them. If not / until then, I would not recommended trying to bring it back. Let me know if I can be of further help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Edgenuity

Hello! Thank you for your time reviewing the Edgenuity article. I understand what you mean when you say it feels like an advertisement, but after elaborating, I can't determine what I need to alter specifically. And trust me, I have no affiliation with this company, other than a student who uses and mildly dislike it. Can you state what wording, context, or sources need to be altered?

Le Panini (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Panini: Thanks for the post. It helps me understand the situation in order to try to do a better job of helping. I think that what has happened is that you are extracting the most readily available facts from the sources and are ending up with mostly the types of things that the company would say the way they would say them. You did end up including criticisms, but you are missing a lot of the general and description that thorough independent sources would write to inform the reader about them.

Ideally the best sources to develop an article from are ones that independent in-depth coverage of the topic. Indeed one of wain ways to pass wp:notability for the topic is to see if there are a few of such sources. The article was sort of short on this but I decided that the amount of sourcing and real-world notability is so immense on this, and that it is an encyclopedic topic which many people will be coming to Wikipedia for (especially now) that I certainly shouldn't fail (send to wp:afd) it on wp:notability, and that it would certainly be kept at AFD if I did. Upon closer look, I see that you have a really tough job here. None of the sources in the article are quite that ideal one. So in short, your job as an editor is tough because you are short on the best kind of sources to build an article from., Searching is tough because so much coverage is either by the supplier or by schools who bought it and thus are supporting it / their decision.

I searched harder and found some that I think could help in this respect:

https://www.edsurge.com/product-reviews/edgenuity

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/05/a-grown-up-tries-out-online-learning-finds-himself-as-bored-as-real-high-school-students.html

https://www.chalkbeat.org/2019/5/20/21108176/this-school-district-outsourced-many-of-its-high-school-courses-to-an-online-program-but-it-s-not-cl

https://miruscharter.com/online-learning-with-edgenuity/

Another way to look at it is to think of someone who doesn't know what Edgenuity is and goes to Wikipedia to find out. The vague "advertisement" type statements don't say very much. My suggestion would be to read those 4 sources (not that they are perfect) and to take what you learned and derived from them to answer the question "What is Edgenuity?" Hopefully that helps a little. Let me know if I can help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers!

		The Beer Barnstar
		Thanks North8000 for taking the time to review pages for NPP! AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AugusteBlanqui: Thanks. Keep up the good work.....a double benefit....to Wikipedia and to your students. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Center for the Political Future notability tag

Hello! Thank you for reviewing my page USC Center for the Political Future. I see that you added a note saying it may have issues with notability. I was hoping you could elaborate more on that. I've tried to submit other articles and this has had the most success.

The first two sources I have are reliable sources, at least I think they are. They are the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Both of those articles not only make passing mention of the Center for the Political Future but talk about it in depth. I also found this source from POLITICO, which mentions the Center for the Political Future, but it is in reference to the LA Times article about its launch. I haven't added it yet but wanted to run it by you before I did to see if you thought it would alleviate your edits.

Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated I am hoping to fix any problems with this page that I can in order to make my article as good as it can be.--HarrisonJ09 (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HarrisonJ09: I think that that if you put that extra source in that would put it over the top on notability. The question isn't wp:reliability; it's about having in-depth coverage about the topic of the article. I'm going to assume that you will and remove the tag and mark it as reviewed. Regarding advice on how to improve the article, the article, and particularly the body of the article is really short on discussing the topic of the article, the center itself. Two ideas regarding this:

The sources that you noted have good material for this; suggesting getting some of that material on the center itself from those and putting it into the body of the article, and maybe add a sentence summary to the lead.

Most of the material that you do have about the center itself is only in the lead. The lead should be a summary of what is in the body of the article. Suggest moving that to the body of the article and them summarizing that in the lead.

Not that the other material you have in there isn't already good stuff. Happy editing and let me know if I can help further. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I added the citation and will review the changes and start working on them.--HarrisonJ09 (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Mishlove

I edited the Jeffrey Mishlove article and removed some puffery and redundant content. I also removed your tag, you can retag if you think it is still not up to par. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MistyGraceWhite: Thanks for the post. I think that there is a bit of confusion here; I'm not the one who tagged it. It was tagged for general enclyclopedic rewrite before I reviewed it. When I got to it I noticed two very peacocky/unenclyclopedic phrases in there which I took out and also a general wording/prose type issue to where it looked like just a bunch of choppy list of statements put in as single sentence paragraphs. (In my post at the talk page I was mostly thinking about the latter and I didn't have a puffery / peacocky concern after I took out those two phrases. You fixed the writing issue, it looks great albeit short. You may wish to consider re-adding any actual content that you took out. Happy editing. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop leaving Page Curation messages on my talk page

I have basically never started the articles you're sending me messages about, only the redirects. Use PageTriage or manually send the Page Curation message to the editor who actually created the content on the page. If you reply to me, I have turned pings off, so using that or the reply template will not work. Besides that, I do not need a message back about this either here or on my talk page. Ss112 21:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: You indicated messageS; I've only sent you one. And you are the one who created the page that I had the advice on, even though, as you note, others created most of the content. I'll try to remember that you specifically don't want any heads-up when it involves pages that you created, but I can't promise. Either way it looks like it is unlikely to come up again. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the messages you have sent me in the previous two months to do with Page Curation. Regardless, thank you. Ss112 21:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

Please use Twinkle for creating AfDs. Apart from it being much easier than doing manually, it will avoid errors like this - this AfD doesn't use any of the standard templates so it will not correctly appear on the log page. SD0001 (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: Thanks for the post. So my "mistake" was to use the main official way to do it, which doesn't work work! :-) I plan to learn twinkle but haven't yet. So far I have found info that talks about it, and how to enable it, but not how to use it. North8000 (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing to learn. You just have to click/hover over the "TW" button, click XFD, enter your rationale and hit submit. While there does exist a brief usage guide at WP:TW/DOC, you don't really have to read it, you can figure out everything on the fly. SD0001 (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: Well, you just wrote the key missing part from the guide. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability workshop

How wp:notability it works right now

Currently Wikipedia's notability requirement is an immensely complex kludge that mostly works but which few really understand. And most of the few that do do so instinctively from experience rather than being able to describe it. Here's an outline of what it structurally is and how it works:

The lead of wp:notability is not a summary of the body, it is a separate meta-guideline which defines Wikipedia's requirements for existence as a separate article. In essence it says:

A topic is presumed (with a seldom-noticed link to REBUTTABLE presumption) to merit an article if:

It is not clearly excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
It fulfills either the body of the wp:notability guideline (which uses sourcing as it's criteria and is often called "WP:GNG", deliberately not linked) or a relevant listed subject-specific guideline ("SNG")

Rather than being written as a firm or explicit policy, the guidelines use softer wording, in essence saying that they are merely predictors of community decisions made at WP:AFD. The operative parts of the SNG's provide alternate ways (besides the sourcing based requirement in the body of wp:notability) to fulfill the wp:notability requirement. The SNG criteria give lip service to sourcing requirements by saying that they are merely predictors of sourcing, but that lip service has no operational effect.

The actual operative wp:notability criteria is community decisions at wp:afd. Wp:afd has a sort of circular relationship with the notability guidelines; the guidelines usually heavily influence results at wp:AFD, but the guidelines are written as if they are merely predictors of what will happen at wp:afd. Wp:notability-related decisions at wp:afd are based on (in decreasing order of importance):

Degree of compliance with either the body of wp:gng, or compliance with an applicable SNG
Degree of enclyclopedicness of the topic, including degree of compliance with What Wikipedia is not. Note that, beyond the separate test of meeting the low bar of basic compliance with What Wikipedia is not, degree of compliance is also listed as an influence on notability decisions.
Past precedence at wp:afd where it bypasses/overrides the written notability guidelines. Most of these exceptions are documented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes but a few others are unwritten.
Regarding wp:GNG, proportion of coverage to notability. For example, accounting for the fact that there is likely less coverage of a 200 year old historical topic than of a local kid's baseball team.

The most common review of whether or not to nominate an article to wp:afd occurs by the new article review/curation process / new page patrol. They try to follow the same criteria as above.

So what is missing?

I've now had a chance to read this (thank you) and to read the network of pages connected to WP:N. I think some recent edits helped but, as you say, none of it is written... can be written succinctly because it's sort of like a fluid version of one of those pictures which is either a face silhouette or a vase, depending how you look at it. GNG/SNG vs AfD, I mean. I've been trying to find simpler ways to be succinct about what might warrant a new article over on the page where we're sketching out a possible Request an article wizard. I've taken the liberty of focusing a lot on the word 'significant'. I know we use it alongside 'coverage' but we also use it to describe putting in people, here. Anyway, is that the kind of thing that could be a simpler explanation around the subject of whether or not a thing belongs here? -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the issues & Problems? Discussion

Treat this subsection as a talk page

To get us going, I'm bringing over some pertinent bits from the last discussion. (Apologies if this is really clumsy of me.) There was this:

The fact that wp:notability has so many kluges (SNG's) , patches (SNG's) widely accepted exceptions, and some glaring imbalances and is such a source of confusion means that some tuneup is needed. Even though the system mostly works. Sometimes the best policy is to put into words the common sense decision-making which mostly works. This would be:
A decision that weighs all three of these:

Degree of Enclyclopedicness (a consideration aside from just meeting the low bar of wp:not)

Real world notability as gauged by #3

Coverage in sources per the last 3/4 of wp:gng. And, besides being this it's own criteria, it is also the gauge for #2 although it must be unequally applied to compensate for coverage-heavy and coverage-light fields.
And determines if the the result is enough to merit an article in an encyclopedia which will "only" have 10 or 20 million articles.^[1]

And this:

... there are some "in progress" states as you are alluding to. One is for cases explicitly defined in the SNG's where sources are presumed to exist.^[2]

And this, ref types of articles in Wikipedia:

Vital Articles on major aspects of nature (eg: geography) and humanity (eg: world wars) that stand on a foundation of common knowledge

Key Articles that stand on a foundation of broad collective knowledge (eg: Lego); one might call that 'renown'

Subject Articles that require a foundation of evidence in order to be verified^[3]

Plus these things:

WP:V is non-negotiable; notability can't override that^[4]
The GNG and SNGs are equal as providing presumptions of notability^[5]
Some topics/people are “worthy” of having an entire article devoted to them (ie a lot of notice)... while others are only “worthy” of mention in the context of some other, related article (ie only a little notice). Again, we look to the source coverage to determine which level of notice applies.^[6]
SNG's stated principles and advice are contrary to their operative statements ^[7]
Another other guide... defacto says that a whole lot of topics are defacto exempt from wp:notability^[8]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes^[9]
Other unwritten accepted practices which are applied^[10]
Lack of any clear and consistently used statement of what wp:notability is^[11]
The actual wp:notability standard is unwritten, and is a combination of the ostensible notability standard, plus degree of enclyclopedicness^[12]

Aims

to identify the main entry-points where WP offers a statement on the validity of creating a new article and how to make that judgement^[13]
to produce answers to the questions that new editors might ask when pondering their first article^[14]
to unify those answers into a single (working) definition^[15]
to identify all main front doors (four identified?)^[16]

References

Result: List of the issues and problems? Working draft

Treat this subsection as an article page. Ok to modify text, no signatures needed

The overall topic of wp:Notability is too hard to learn and too difficult/complex for newcomers to understand in a way that doesn't put them off posting a new article

Speedy deletion declined: 2020 Shanghai Golden Grand Prix

Hello North8000. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 2020 Shanghai Golden Grand Prix, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: importance asserted as part of 2020 Diamond League, consider redirecting per WP:ATD-R. Thank you. So Why 08:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Quoting North8000 in here

[2] North8000, here

[3] BessieMaelstrom after Masem, here

[4] Masem, here

[5] Masem, here

[6] Blueboar, here

[7] North8000, here

[8] North8000, here

[9] North8000, here

[10] North8000, here

[11] North8000, here

[12] North8000, here

[13] GhostInTheMachine, here

[14] GhostInTheMachine, here

[15] GhostInTheMachine, here

[16] GhostInTheMachine, here

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

@@ Line 767: / Line 767: @@
 The most common review of whether or not to ''nominate'' an article to [[wp:afd]] occurs by the new article review/curation process / new page patrol. They try to follow the same criteria as above.
+==== So what is missing? ====
+I've now had a chance to read this (thank you) and to read the network of pages connected to WP:N. I think some recent edits helped but, as you say, none of it is written... <em>can</em> be written succinctly because it's sort of like a fluid version of one of those pictures which is either a face silhouette or a vase, depending how you look at it. GNG/SNG vs AfD, I mean. I've been trying to find simpler ways to be succinct about what might warrant a new article over on the page where we're sketching out a possible [[User:BessieMaelstrom/RAAW|Request an article wizard]]. I've taken the liberty of focusing a lot on the word 'significant'. I know we use it alongside 'coverage' but we also use it to describe putting in people, [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|here]]. Anyway, is that the kind of thing that could be a simpler explanation around the subject of whether or not a thing belongs here? -- [[User:BessieMaelstrom|BessieMaelstrom]] ([[User talk:BessieMaelstrom|talk]]) 23:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 ===What are the issues & Problems?  Discussion===