User talk:Northamerica1000

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doncram (talk | contribs) at 20:34, 15 January 2015 (→‎help on a first non-admin AFD closure: thanks, wow!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A triangular graphic representing a "hierarchy of disagreement", from clear refutation to mere vituperation
















Deleted Page Ryan Rafferty

Hi NorthAmerica,

I have some questions relating to why this page was deleted off Wikipedia. Is it possible to have it reinstated so that I can have it's notability better enhanced? Please. Raffobeast (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Kind Regards[reply]

Hi User:Raffobeast: Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Rafferty, the subject was deemed non-notable per a lack of independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage about him. As such, I'd be more comfortable seeing evidence of such coverage before moving forward with the notion of republishing the article. NorthAmerica1000 13:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:NorthAmerica1000 Hi NorthAmerica, Thanks for getting back to me. As you can see in the original article that quite notable links had been provided. The article also contained a reference to an official charts page where the artists work had appeared under his stagename "Weekend Warriors" (See position 11) chart. Under Wikipedia's terms and conditions this falls under notable achievements. I am waiting on one more source of information to come and I will provide this to you so you can see. For now the links that had been referenced are below including one further one at the top.

http://www.frequency.com/video/john-truelove-love-to-dance-ant-tokyo/21947744/-/5-4777454 https://www.trackitdown.net/news/show/100909.html http://www.ryanrafferty.com.au/about/ http://www.harderfaster.net/text/reviews/33425 http://www.judgejulesarchive.co.uk/archives/board/index.php?/page/index.html/_/1992-2013/2006/2006-01-14-r512 http://www.digital-trends.de/Nimrod/ http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/12/2010-02-06/ https://itunes.apple.com/ca/album/this-is-life-single/id906178765 https://itunes.apple.com/au/album/in-the-mood-single/id405366303 http://www.discogs.com/artist/769476-Ryan-Rafferty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZjcY3ArjUQ

Yours faithfully Raffobeast (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Raffobeast: Sources that were in the article, as well as those above, are mostly non-reliable per Wikipedia's standards. See WP:IRS for more information about what constitutes reliable sources. Furthermore, to qualify for an article, a subject typically requires having received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, which the subject appears to lack at this time. NorthAmerica1000 01:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi User:NorthAmerica1000 Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. I do appreciate your feedback regarding non-reliable standards but I think in this instance the article does in fact meet the minimum standard for inclusion as per the below.

How to meet the requirement, An article must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if:

Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication. Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding first-party sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials. Sources: At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective. Based upon: These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance. Once an article meets this minimal standard, additional content can be verified using any reliable source. However, any information that violates What Wikipedia is not must be removed, regardless of whether or not it is verified in reliable third-party sources.

. Also another notable reference for Ryan Rafferty's page which wasn't included in the original page was the collaboration between himself and Micky Modelle under the stagename "Nimrod" which was included in a very reliable BBC radio track listing entry- source here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/davepearce/tracklistingarchive.shtml?20061217 (See Nimrod - My Life).

As you can see this does establish the minimum criteria.

If you could grant my request I will see that more references and links are included and the page is improved. It would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. Raffobeast (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Raffobeast: At this time, if you feel that the subject meets notability guidelines, please consider starting a discussion at WP:DELETIONREVIEW. While there were only three participation at the deletion discussion, consensus for deletion was existent there. As such, I would be going against consensus restoring the article based upon the sources you have provided above. Deletion review is the best forum to present your case to the community. NORTH AMERICA1000 01:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:NorthAmerica1000 Thanks for replying. I appreciate your reply and have taken your advice and opened a deletion review case. Raffobeast (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Deletion review for Ryan Rafferty

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ryan Rafferty. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Raffobeast (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural festivals in Indian colleges

We had unanimity in favor of merging, so this should be closed rather than relisted. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Postdlf: The nominator states in a comment, "it could be merged into the Cultural Festival (India) page that Postdlf has mentioned", (italic emphasis mine) but does not explicitly state to merge, and has not withdrawn or struck the nomination. As such, I hesitate to close this as a merge. NorthAmerica1000 16:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator also stated in their comment, "Right now it appears to be a free-for-all." To me, this (and the above) is not congruent with a strong merge sentiment. NorthAmerica1000 16:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Prill (3rd nomination)

Hi Northamerica1000. You relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Prill (3rd nomination). You participated in the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Prill (2nd nomination). I'm letting you know in case you want to participate in the current AfD. Cunard (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Verizon article?

Hello Northamerica1000, I am reaching out as you appear to be one of the few active members from the list of participants at WikiProject Companies and I am looking for an editor/editors to look over a draft for the Verizon Communications article. I am an employee of Verizon and I don't make any direct edits to Verizon related articles myself, but from time to time I have put forward drafts to offer updates and additional encyclopedic information. Would you be able help me with a draft I have offered for a suggested new section?

The proposed draft is to add a section regarding the company's "Corporate responsibility", which is not included in the article at present. The draft is in my userspace and I have left a more detailed request on the Verizon Talk page, here. If you would be able to spare the time, can you look at my draft and move it into the article if it looks good to you? I am open to any suggestions or questions.

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Northamerica1000, I understand that you'd prefer not to assist, and I appreciate your suggestion to add a connected contributor template to the Verizon Communications Talk page. I'll make sure to do that. VZBob (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help in a talk and reversion?

Perhaps you can help here and understand what we can do here (see 2nd introductory paragraph and quotation)... You know this didactic video fragment? --Krauss (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry

Hello,

I originally created this page. I tried to find it today, but find it was deleted.

I have now found the archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article. The debate apparently began on 3 December 2014 and was terminated on 17 December 2014. This seems to be far too peremptory. I had no chance of responding to any of the points made, as I would have liked to do -- I was not even aware of the debate taking place.

I would be glad if the article can be reinstated, and I shall be happy to respond to the points to the best of my knowledge. Ankababel (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Ankababel: A problem is that per the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry, the journal was found to not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Regarding the duration of the deletion discussion, they are actually often closed after seven days, so the duration of time, as per Wikipedia's standards, was not particularly short, especially since the discussion was relisted for an additional week. I'm not allowed to reinstate the article in these circumstances. I'm sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you. NorthAmerica1000 01:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello NorthAmerica: thank you for the explanation. I would not say that I have been inconvenienced, but I am concerned that some of the points made in the discussion were inaccurate. I would be sorry if the deletion was actually carried out on spurious grounds, as seems to have been the case. Only a small number of users participated in the deletion discussion, and they do not seem to have taken the trouble to properly research the matter. Is there a procedure for reviewing the decision?Ankababel (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ankababel: I'm familiar with User:Randykitty and User:DGG, both of whom contributed to the discussion and both of whom are trusted administrators on Wikipedia. The closest guideline relative to the subject is Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), which is not a Wikipedia guideline page, but is used at times in deletion discussions. Do you have any evidence that the topic may meet any of the criteria therein, or that which counters arguments presented in the deletion discussion (including the nomination)? Due to the overall arguments and consensus at the deletion discussion, it's unlikely that I will be able to restore the article. A place to contest closures is at WP:Deletion review Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. NorthAmerica1000 09:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually,Ankababel, it would have to be at WP:Deletion review, since it was deleted at AfD. Requests for Undeletion deals only with prods and AfC deletions. Take a look first at the AfD: the decision was unanimous. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DGG for the clarification. I knew that, but for whatever reason, I thought about WP:REFUND, rather than the correct Wikipedia:Deletion review. (facepalm) NorthAmerica1000 09:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NorthAmerica and DGG for the further clarifications. To summarize, I need to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review, correct? I definitely have counterarguments to the arguments presented in the deletion discussion. User:Randykitty was very helpful when I first created the page, so I am surprised that s/he voted for deletion! But, is there any way I can access the page as it was before deletion? I need to know what was, actually, being discussed.Ankababel (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NorthAmerica: Thank you. I have consulted WP:Deletion review and am satisfied that it is appropriate according to the Purpose. The Instructions ask me first (before listing a review request) to discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. It is unfortunate that I was not alerted to the deletion discussion (presumably the page was not on my watchlist) otherwise I could have made the points then and there. So should I go ahead and list a review request?Ankababel (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Ankababel: go for it. It's unfortunate that you were not notified about the discussion. While this is not required when articles are nominated for deletion, in my opinion it is preferred to notify article creators and contributors about them. NorthAmerica1000 10:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NorthAmerica: I agree -- it should (and could) be automatic. A) I have reviewed some recent Deletion reviews and see (roughly) how it works. I have some questions, numbered for ease of reference: 1) is the decision at the end made by any administrator or the one who deleted it in the first place? 2) Unfortunately I could not find any journal page that had been deleted. This would have been useful as a guide. Are you aware of any? Is there a tool to locate them? B) regarding the AfD, 5 editors contributed, which I deal with in turn: 1) the nominator made several points i) "without an impact factor" -- from the data cited IF > 50/318. Is there a formal threshold? Besides, these are BIOSYS data only; since the journal gives equal weight to chemistry and physics, which are presumably not of interest to BIOSYS, IF could be 3x that. ii) "only listed indexing services are minor" -- is Chemical Abstracts Services minor? I thought that was the major one. iii) "the link to the journal here is currently dead" -- I have checked it now & it is working fine. Maybe some temporary glitch in a server? It is unfortunate that the link was then marked as "dead" -- would have negatively influenced opinion, of course. 2) Comments by Randykitty are problematical because Randykitty contributed to the creation of the page and these issues, that were originally raised, were resolved then -- otherwise the page would not have remained. Why the change of opinion? 3) Blue Rasberry refers to Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) but you have yourself stated that they are "sometimes used". In any case there are no absolute rules. Given the journal's unique profile and history, and the way it occupies a very special niche, especially in FIS, a strong case for an exception could be made. 4) DGG: "Worldcat shows only 6 library holdings". This must be a gross underestimate, because "Only libraries that have created a profile in the WorldCat Registry are listed in the library search results". I doubt that our departmental library, which subscribes to the journal, has bothered to create a profile. 5) Joaquin008: "per nom". I do not understand this. Could you explain, please? Finally, I note from the history that an orphan tag was added on 18 March 2014. It is not so obvious why a journal page should have incoming links (but I will check other journals), but of course they could be created. But is it appropriate for me as page creator to do that? Seems like COI, which is why I never even looked at the page again until a few days ago. I would appreciate your advice on this. Thanks Ankababel (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Deletion review discussions are typically (and should be) closed by an uninvolved administrator
2. See this custom search to view AfD discussions that have occurred regarding journals. Some of these have been closed with a deletion result.
3. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is the closest thing to a guideline page for journals
4. Regarding editor !votes in the discussion, you should ask them about it, as they can explain their rationales better than I can
5. "Per nom" in deletion discussions is an abbreviation for "per nominator"
6. Links to articles are functional to interconnect topics in the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking for more information. Having some incoming links to an article one created is unlikely to cause concerns about conflict of interest.
– NORTH AMERICA1000 00:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi NorthAmerica: thank you for these responses, all very helpful, thx especially for custom search. May I (perhaps finally on this topic) ask:
(a) whether you find my responses to AfD points reasonable
(b) does the closing administrator simply tot up the votes, or are the points critically evaluated for validity and weighted accordingly
(c) is there a ″quorum″ (i.e. minimum number of participants) for AfD (and deletion review)? Ankababel (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Ankababel: I recommend adhering to the points at the Notes and examples section of Notability (academic journals) page in terms of qualifying the criteria listed above that section on the page, as there is precedent therein. Some of your points above are functional in terms potentially demonstrating notability. Afd and Deletion review discussions are closed upon the merits of arguments relative to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. There is no minimum for participants in said discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TAFI Dishwashing liquid

Hi! Happy New Year! How are you? I was wondering if you could help me use some of the references I've scouted out in talk:dishwashing liquid. Regardless, thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananasoldier (talk • contribs) 04:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SARAH

You deleted it, but it remains. I emailed oversight hours ago. They just replied saying thanks and the team has suppressed the information. It remains. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi AF: try purging your cache and reloading the page. It should be gone. NorthAmerica1000 14:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked oversight to remove the username entirely. Maybe I wasn't clear with them or you. Sorry. Actually, I'm not sure they can even do that, but I think so. Also, maybe it isn't even needed because there the account is blocked and Wikipedia is a big place. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AF: Per Wikipedia:FAQ#How do I change my username/delete my account?, "A username cannot be deleted". However, it wouldn't surprise me if WMF has a way to wipe the user name entirely. Per Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing#Vanishing from Wikipedia, the user name can be changed, in which a bureaucrat performs this, which will also change the name in the revision history of articles contributed to. However, after the page in question was deleted, there are no contributions present for that user now. NORTH AMERICA1000 03:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

Some TAFI for you!

Some TAFI for you!
Thanks for your contribs to Dishwashing liquid! Bananasoldier (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, dishwashing liquid is 1286 characters away from DYK prose qualification. Also, how do we know when we've met consensus on the move proposal? Bananasoldier (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2015)

The history of Mongolia includes the foundation, expansion, and fragmentation of the Mongol Empire in the 13th century
Hello, Northamerica1000.

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

History of Mongolia

Previous selections: Dishwashing liquid • Skyline

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Tech News: 2015-03

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • Rotated PDF files in landscape format used to show too small. They will now display correctly. You may need to purge older files. [1]
  • You can now use the {{!}} magic word instead of Template:!. Many wikis used the template to create a pipe (|) in tables and templates. You can delete the template. [2]

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf14) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since January 7. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from January 13. It will be on all Wikipedias from January 14 (calendar).
  • A bug in VisualEditor sometimes added a ☀ (Sun) character. This is now fixed. [3]
  • The search and replace tool in VisualEditor is now much faster in long pages. [4]
  • The TemplateData editor now uses the same design as VisualEditor. [5] [6] [7]
  • The thumb option is now shown in your language in the help of the classic editor toolbar. [8]

Future changes

  • You can sign up to answer questions from designers. It will help them make editing easier. [9]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

??

Hey bro,

Any greetings template on near future? We don't lack any celebrations. How about Valentine..But beware that you dont give it to any female editor..:-) --The Herald : here I am 12:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi The Herald: For starters, check out this page: List of holidays by country. I may pass on a Valentine's Day Wikilove template. I tend to create these for the more "major" holidays (e.g. those that people get a day off of work on) and New Year. However, if you decide to create a Valentines Day template and want any assistance, just let me know. Cheers, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

help on a first non-admin AFD closure

Hi Northamerica1000. I just tried performing my first close of an AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oroville Fire Department (California), for Oroville Fire Department, as "Keep" given the nominator eventually voted "Keep" and there was no opposition. Could you possibly please review it?

  • For one thing, the Old AFD Multi box that I added at top of Talk:Oroville Fire Department fails to link to the AFD discussion. I can't see what I missed in setting that up. Can you?
Oh, I see I hadn't noticed inclusion of "(California)" in the AFD name, which is different than the article name. The article was moved/renamed on January 11, during the AFD. Hmm, do I need to do anything at the redirect Talk page, or otherwise change anything, given the discrepancy between article name vs. AFD-reported article name?
  • Also, should I have closed it as "Speedy Keep", as I did close it before 7 days? I believe it was okay/good to close early, given apparent consensus of all 2 participants, right?

Your comments welcome. Thanks in advance, --doncram 00:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Doncram: No worries. Here's a rundown of some minor adjustments I performed:
  1. Moved the section header below the closing comment. The closing comment always goes at the very top of the discussion (just underneath Template:Afd top)
  2. Changed the close to "speedy keep" per your comment above. This was an appropriate close per Wikipedia:Speedy keep – Applicability, point #1. Nobody in the discussion opined to delete, and the nominator withdrew.
  3. Added (Non-administrator closure.) to the closing comment. Non-admin disclosure is recommended at this same linked page (in this point #3), wherein it states "Non-administrators closing deletion discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision." A different way to do this is with Template:Nac, by adding {{subst:nac}}.
  • You placed the oldafdfull template on the correct page, on the talk page of the article's present location.
  1. I moved the oldafdfull template below the Wikiproject templates, as per Administrator AfD close instructions, section "Carrying out the AfD close", subsection "Keep".
– That's it. Cheers, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for explaining! Wow, I didn't expect so many separate points, this is more complex than I always thought it would be. I am taking note of these several points including tip to use that "subst:nac" shortcut. Thanks, cheers, :) --doncram 20:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
North, I just want to say that you have been doing a wonderful job as administrator. I have been admiring your good judgment and your always calm and helpful demeanor. As soon as you got the mop, you immediately became the administrator we all hoped you would be. Keep up the good work! MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United Blood Nation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latin Kings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Northamerica1000&oldid=642651532"