This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Hi
User:Czar: I base nacs upon
WP:NACD, which is part of Wikipedia's deletion guideline, and I take my nacs seriously. It doesn't state the criteria therein that you describe above. Regarding the close, it doesn't appear that a
WP:NPASR closure would be appropriate in this case, because therein it states "If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator (or few in the case of AfDs), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion..." There was an adequate number of participants in the discussion (more than a "few" participants). Also there were enough participants that a relisting isn't necessary. Please respond at your convenience.
NorthAmerica100004:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the verdict was the wrong call—I just wanted to point out that I saw such a closure as outside the bounds of our working NAC framework (that this close was NC and not NC+NPASR). Yes, it's fine by NACD, but NACD doesn't go into detail. Anyway, your action to decide—just wanted to mention it to you. Have a good one czar
♔04:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. In this instance, I feel that there were just enough participants to not close with a WP:NPASR clause, although it is somewhat close. However, lack of a WP:NPASR close does not preclude the article being renominated for deletion.
NorthAmerica100005:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been
reverted or removed.
If you are engaged in an article
content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's
dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the
relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
No, you're incorrect. My edit was not unconstructive in any manner. The way you reworded my addition is not written as such in the source I added to the
Oatcake article. It's important for Wikipedia content to contain no synthesis or original research. Please keep this in mind.
NorthAmerica100014:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to
disambiguation pages. 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.
Hello,
I saw that my article (HTML5 Article) was declined due to the article's context. I was wondering if there was anything specific that you saw wrong that I might improve on? Thank you.
Pbbalduc (
talk)
22:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask you a question which I think you can answer. If an AfD literally has no interest at all other than from the nominator, how many times can the discussion be relisted while waiting for community feedback? I'm assuming there must be some sort of limit.
MezzoMezzo (
talk)
04:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, it seems that two is the rough limit. Assuming that nobody responds and the closer desides to close with no prejudice against a speedy renomination, what happens if the same situation occurs again? If the articles aren't prod material, could they fall into a continuous loop of reasonable nominations for deletion but a simple lack of interest on the part of the community in even seconding the nomination?
MezzoMezzo (
talk)
05:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi -- I have a question. I noticed on an article that you and I both edited recently that you added a "|2" to make the references section two columns. I've often done that in the past as well.
An editor is continually reverting me, and reverting as well the prior long-established formats of articles that are "|2". Insisting that a "|2" format is strictly verboten. And only em columns are allowed.
User:Epeefleche: I may decline on getting involved in this matter; I'm working on other things at this time. However, I have seen discussions before regarding columns. From what I recollect, the use of the em parameter (e.g. 30em) has been encouraged when dividing into three columns, because it works best on most browsers (e.g. compared to using {{divcol|3}}). However, I've never seen discussion that outright bans the use of {{divcol|2}} (Et al.) parameters. Hope this helps out!
NorthAmerica100010:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
(
talk page stalker) The use of "|2" is deprecated in favor of "|30em" or some other "xxem" as the first parameter. Using "xxem" as the first parameter will automatically set the number of columns based on the viewer's screen size. See
Template:Reflist/doc#Columns for details. By the way, I only recently became aware of this myself, so it's probably not widely-known and editors should assume an extra dose of
good faith both in removing "|2" and in replying if their addition of "|2" is reverted with an overly-strong reason given for the reversion.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs)
15:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
On my screen, the em is inferior. The "|2" forces two columns, which is easier to read. The em leaves it as one column. The same happens on my iphone. --
Epeefleche (
talk)
22:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Green Building Council Russia - revision
Hi Northamerica1000
If I drastically shorten the article is there any hope of it being allowed? I note that WGBC, USGBC, UKGBC and other councils are published - so its logical we should be there too.
Am ready to change style accordingly although from USGBC the start reads very commercially - thats what I was basing my style on.
If significant coverage per the above is not available, all is not lost. You can to add information about the topic to
World Green Building Council, as long as the information is properly
verified, preferably with independent, reliable third-party sources. Hope this helps out, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia.
NorthAmerica100006:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The article had some format issues and was tagged. Those are
now corrected. Needs use of sources to flesh out production and critical response. Have a nice night.
09:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello North, I just saw this new list article you created. I am thinking perhaps you did not already know that we have had (for quite a few years) a rather nice navigational template
which contains a well-organized list of edible mollusks? Your list is in alphabetical order, which might seem like a good idea, but nearly all the species are known by a common name as well as a scientific name, therefore listing them alphabetically without separating clams from snails etc is probably not very useful to a reader. Also your list has only one reference, and that ref only covers abalone. And it contains no freshwater or land species. Anyway, tell me what you think once you have looked at the template.
Invertzoo (
talk)
13:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Another point that more than one malacologist author has made in the past is that almost all mollusks are edible, it's just a question of which ones are considered to be the most palatable (and easiest to harvest) in any given part of the world.
Invertzoo (
talk)
13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi
User:Invertzoo: It's a work in progress, and thanks for your opinion. Yes, this would benefit from further organization, as well as the addition of descriptions, which templates lack. Feel free to improve the article, and I'll also keep performing further improvements in mind. Regarding all mollusks as edible, I wouldn't state this in any article without very adequate reliable sourcing to back up this assertion.
NorthAmerica100022:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The above was reverted by another user (
diff) with the edit summary, "It's possible for an account to be registered and have a legitimate user page without having any contributions". I've sent them a notice about this discussion to request input.
NorthAmerica100003:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)All four of these things are completely independent of each other:
User account exists
User has contributions
User page exists
User talk page exists
If and only if the account doesn't exist (which will be indicated via a big message in red text), then pages under that account's userspace are eligible for U2. In this case, the user does exist (and has contributions, but that's not important), so U2 doesn't apply, even though the user's user page doesn't exist. What you wrote on the CSD policy page is wrong because it's possible for an account to exist but have no contributions, such as a doppelganger account.
Jackmcbarn (
talk)
03:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
On
9 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bludwine, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in its earlier years, the
soft drinkBludwine was marketed as having health benefits, such as aiding in digestion, and some physicians in
Georgia prescribed it to their patients? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at
Template:Did you know nominations/Bludwine. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (
here's how,
live views,
daily totals), and it may be added to
the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the
Did you know talk page.
Sorry about that. I saw that you had relisted it, but didn't pick up on the fact that you had just relisted it today. I thought I was looking at a situation where if I relisted it again, that would be the third. My bad. --
RoySmith(talk)18:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to put {{lang en}} next to links that are in English unless it would be surprising if it wasn't (it's English Wikipedia, so English is implied).
—Microchip08 (
talk)
10:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the
Egyptian Steel article, there is also a link in the EL section to their Arabic-language site, so I feel that use of the language icons is appropriate to distinguish between the two.
NorthAmerica100010:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick note about
sharenting. The two sources that you added are already in the article – the Gulf News article is syndicated from The Guardian, and the ABC2 story is the regional, syndicated version of the national ABC article. If you look closely, they have the same bylines and content, even though the titles are different. It's obviously a devious plot to get us to include them in our articles.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
06:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was the devious part. I only recognized them because I spent hours reading articles about this topic. I now know more than I ever wanted to know about sharenting and the dangers of posting baby pics online. Forewarned is forearmed, I suppose.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
06:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to
disambiguation pages. 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.
Hmmmm... I thought Google translate was considered unreliable? Perhaps it has progressed a bit since then... Those translations look a little rough around the edges. Isn't there some sort of template you put on a page requesting that it be translated from the foreign language Wikipedia?
Okay figured I ask someone-I have not edited in a few days due to the fact the new lays is kind of annoying when you try to edit. When I paste something I go back to the top, ect. Do you know if there is a way to go back to the old way? (I'm using IE right now)
Wgolf (
talk)
20:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually I don't mean layout, its just a bunch of things come up like another box to put the bold, italic and underline. And when I try to post my sig it goes to the edit summary instead of the normal place it shoud.
User:Wgolf: I'm really not sure about how to correct this. Firstly, you could try using another browser. Simply disabling wikEd may solve your problems. Another thing is to check
Beta features and select/deselect Compact personal bar, VisualEditor, VisualEditor language tool, etc. if you are using any of these features. Additional places to get help include the
Help desk and
Teahouse.
NorthAmerica100020:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Somehow something on my preferences got changed-I just pressed reset all and everything is good. (Can't believe I didn't think of that earlier) anyway have a nice night!
Wgolf (
talk)
01:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello North, thanks for your closure on this. But I disagree that it is a no consensus. The nomination itself is an implied delete !vote (assuming the closer agrees that it is policy-based), so in the absence of keep !votes, the outcome should have been a
soft delete performed by an admin. Had there been a single valid !keep vote, your closure would have been appropriate. §
FreeRangeFrogcroak16:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi
User:FreeRangeFrog: I closed the discussion per
WP:NPASR, which states (in part) "If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator (or few in the case of AfDs), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. Common options include, but are not limited to:...closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR)..." Since you disagree, I have reopened it. I would say go ahead and delete it, but since you started the discussion, another admin can do so, if that's their judgment to do so.
NorthAmerica100016:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I've always had a problem with the fact that there are multiple no-quorum closure options in the AFD policy, honestly, because one of them (excluding relisting) allows for NACs and one doesn't. I used to stay away from NACs in these cases before I got the mop, for that reason. To clarify, your closure was correct and within policy of course, it's just that I disagree with it
Let's give it maybe a day more and see if a sympathetic admin agrees with me, otherwise we can go with your no consensus option. It's been there long enough as it is... maybe I was too verbose with my nomination, but I really feel this vanity bio should go. In any case, thanks again. §
FreeRangeFrogcroak17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi North, I have seen your work on Wikipedia and your copy-editing skills are spot on and very accurate. I would like to ask you if you could make edits to the page of Expedia (
/info/en/?search=Expedia), as there is some information missing from the page. Would you be willing to make edits to the page so that it's complete? The main areas that I think needs more information are the infobox on the top right, and external links.
Hi
User:Erexkiss: I've updated the infobox at
Expedia (website) to the current version of
Template:Infobox website. Other articles about the companies themselves use
Template:Infobox company, such as
Expedia, Inc. and
TripAdvisor. However, since the Expedia (website) article is about the website itself, the website infobox is most appropriate for this article. I have also added a link to the U.K. website in the external links section. I'm not finding a website for "Expedia ccTLD". I have also added the U.K. url to the infobox. I'm not interested in researching websites in other languages/countries and adding them to the infobox, but feel free to do so per the formatting in the infobox.
NorthAmerica100016:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this North. Regarding other country-specific web addresses, I am reluctant to edit the page as I'm not a seasoned Wikipedia editor, therefore I fear that if I make edits I will compromise Expedia's page and my own account. Would you be willing to add 5 additional web addresses if I give them to you? Your help is much appreciated.
Erexkiss (
talk)
09:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Many Thanks! Is there some sort of risk of compromising the Expedia page, or my account, if I go ahead and update the External Links section with the same information, as currently only US and UK links are present there? it looks a bit unfinished in its current state.
Erexkiss (
talk)
11:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't recommend double-linking, as this would appear promotional. If anything, the links could actually be omitted from the External links section since they're all in the infobox.
NorthAmerica100011:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you know how to make those combo photos where there are four pictures in one image? Are those considered good form? I was thinking some of the fruit and plants type images in
Hawaiian cuisine as well as maybe an initial image, might be good as combo photos?
Candleabracadabra (
talk)
15:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks very much. Probably above my paygrade. I am also a bit wary of fooling around a lot with photos because they look different and the layout varies according to the device they are viewed on, but I do think the combo format would be a good approach for combining some of the multiple photos of fruits and edible plants in the article. Not sure who to ask for assistance?
Candleabracadabra (
talk)
17:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I have come to the conclusion that the listing content at the bottom of the article should be moved to the list article. It's not clear to me the inclusion/ exclusion criteria. And I think the key dishes should be worked into the article. Listing lots of things without much explanation doesn't seem very useful. I also think in the actual list article the descriptions can be improved. Not having to do this in both places would help. I can only handle so much on that article at the mo' however, and issues of article ownership, disruption, incivility, personal attacks, harassment, and obstruction have to be overcome.
Native Hawaiian cuisine might interest you. I'm only getting started and hoping to work in heaps more photos of poi.
Candleabracadabra (
talk)
17:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand. Probably wise. Thanks for your help and input. It is much appreciated. Happy tidings and enjoy your works wherever and whatever they may be. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. I love mucking about!
Candleabracadabra (
talk)
17:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
What does ibidf mean? Did you mean to remove everything but the specialty dishes from list of article?
Candleabracadabra (
talk)
Meant to be "ibid". Content has been restored at the list. A wiki timeout error occurred, after which I kept receiving the blue page "Wikipedia's servers are experiencing a temporary problem..." etc.
NorthAmerica100018:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I figured it was some sort of glitch. I saw you added a photo of
lomi salmon. I actually think, given the premium on images and such, that this photo would be more appropriate and is especially beautiful. It also has the advantage of including several dishes. It definitely includes [[poi (food),
haupia white
steamed rice and
kalua and I assume a poke and... I think lomi?
Candleabracadabra (
talk)
19:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
In fact, this image would be a good opening photo. I don't like the one being used now; I think it's a bit grotesque. But I would be okay with it being used further down in the article if there is not a better image of kalua/ luau. Your photo adjustment at the Hawaii Regional Cuisine article look reasonable to me.
Candleabracadabra (
talk)
20:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The AfD discussion has been reopened. The compromise proposal is to redirect. Underneath this in comments two users were clearly against this. NACs are not limited to keep closures only. It's crystal clear that there's no consensus in the discussion. However, per your concerns, I have re-opened it. It's quite likely that another user will close this with the same no consensus result.
NorthAmerica100015:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The
Open faced sandwich article has been quite unnecessarily butchered by an editor. These facts are not controversial, but quite well know undisputed dishes. I think people should not not mass-remove every sentence that doesn’t have an inline citation, just add a citation if indeed is needed and somebody will find those sources.
WP:PRESERVE. This is not a not controversial topic, and references can be found. Before removing ANYTHING - make sure that there indeed is no such reference for it YOU can find yourself. Otherwise it is just disruptive editing ->
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing forcing other people to start working to find references, when the removed things have been just quite alright, and when they could use their time for better things than start hunting references for totally uncontroversial topics. This is forcing other people who want to build an encyclopaedia to go and work a lot and do the work this guy could do just as well.
WP:PRESERVE is about preserve content. Right, we need references for the American stuff, I fix the Europeans. It is the same thing that happened to Breakfast...
Hafspajen (
talk)
12:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi
User:Hafspajen: I've been off-wiki today, so I missed all the action. Great work improving the article. I have performed some touch-up upon it, and may work on sourcing it more in the near future.
NorthAmerica100006:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear reviewer, I wanted to create an article in Wikipedia for 'the golden ratio ruler', without success. This instrument is used by ancient artists and architects. An actual copy (?) is in the Abbaye Notre-Dame de Sénanque, France, of which a photograph is in my website. I have analyzed selected artworks many of which are Wikipedia articles. I kindly ask you to visit my site and see what can be done about it. This forgotten instrument of art must receive its due respect.
My regards.
Ates Gulcugil
atesgulcugil@hotmail.com
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
List of Hawaiian dishes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages
Poi and
Shrimp chips (
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.
Hi. The actual golden ratio rule is in the Abbaye Notre-Dame de Sénanque. The Earl kinly sent me its photo. You can see it in my website:
http://039a2b6.netsolhost.com/thegoldenrule.html
How can I show a 'reliable' source when even they don't know what it is? However if the words written on it (coudee, empan, palme, paume) are entered in Googele similar carpenter's rules can be found and their owners have the knowledge that they are golden ratio rules.
The golden rule is described in my website. What I have discovered is that it has been used for most art pieces, ancient and medieval and renaissance. These are in my web.
Kind regards.
Ates Gulcugil — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Atesgulcugil (
talk •
contribs)
14:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Update: This morning I spent 3 hours radically re-working the list; you may want to take a look at it to see how it is currently organized. I also just wanted to say that when you make a list that is biological like this one, you need to put the scientific names for genus and species into italics, rather than plain text. It would also be a really good idea to drop a note onto the talk page of the relevant WikiProjects (in this case WikiProject Gastropods and WikiProject Bivalves), in order to let them know the list article has been started and needs a great deal of additional work.
Invertzoo (
talk)
14:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2900 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the
drive's page and help out!
I'm an experienced user and take my discussion closures seriously, which are based upon
WP:NACD rather than the opinion essay. Are there any matters within the discussions themselves that require more attention?
NorthAmerica100013:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Will you be handling the history merge, please (as noted in the
AfD). I know it's a pain and I'd do it if I were an admin, but I'm not so I can't.
FiddleFaddle07:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
It's noted in the AfD, one the non admin ought never to have closed for that simple complexity. The main space article is the result of a copy and paste move by a well meaning editor form the AfC version. I left a note at the foot of your conversation with the closer. Non admin closes are frustrating when they miss important items.
FiddleFaddle08:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for the talkback link to the deletion page discussion. I really don't even like
Luther Vandross, but now I've been spending the morning adding sources to his article. Pet peeve: all those 'citation needed' tags after every statement; even though the article has a large issue tag at the top for more references. All that to say; although I am rather allergic to lists themselves; I will reconsider my merge vote and change to go to your article of list of tours. It is less likely to be deleted than all those pithy articles for each tour. Only one of those articles even has a talk page and it just has a sandbox silly edit. All the best! Fylbecatuloustalk13:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
Dalia seera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
Gujrat (
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.
Hi
User:Anna Frodesiak: I recently sorted it more, which significantly extended its length. Check out its length prior to being further sorted:
diff. I'm all right with the length, because people can always just keep it collapsed. I prefer to keep it as is, because I think in this instance it provides a great overview of all the food list articles all in one template. Furthermore,
Wikipedia:Navigation templates is an opinion essay, rather than a guideline or policy.
NorthAmerica100003:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree. Actually, in fairness, I should have posted this at the template talk. But, with 3 watchers there and you being the chief architect of the navbox, I figured it would be okay to post here. Best,
Anna Frodesiak (
talk)
03:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, while "no consensus" was an understandable closure for
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheek to Cheek (album), one thing I should note is how WP:LOSE (i.e. "We'll lose the info") is not regarded as a convincing argument in deletion discussions per WP:ATA. There were other points raised, though, so I understand the closure rationale.
XXSNUGGUMSXX (
talk)
11:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input and perspective. I've seen WP:LOSE before within the opinion essay at
WP:ATA. Another perspective is the sentiment at
WP:PRESERVE, which is within the Wikipedia policy page at
Wikipedia:Editing policy. Regardless, there's no consensus occurrent at the discussion, hence the no consensus close.
NorthAmerica100014:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Your linking of
ethnic cuisine in this context doesn't make any sense. It refers to a historical period of cuisine in Hawaii classified by food historians, that took place from around 1850-1930. The "notable topic for which an article can be created" refers to that historical period, not to any one "ethnic cuisine". It would be helpful at the bare minimum, if you could follow
WP:OVERLINK and
WP:REDLINK.
Viriditas (
talk)
09:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but why do you think "ethnic cuisine" is a viable link in this context? While you could argue that we need another daughter article on "Ethnic food of Hawaii", I don't think that's what you meant. You meant that we need a general article on "ethnic cuisine", right? Well, all foods are ethnic foods, so could you specify what would go in such an article?
Viriditas (
talk)
10:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I looked, and I don't see anything that would allow to create an article. All cuisine is "ethnic cuisine", it just depends on the context. In the context of the cuisine of Hawaii, it refers to a specific period of Hawaii food history during the plantation immigration period (dates above). In the context you are using it, it refers to any cuisine. I looked at GBooks and can't image how we could create an article about a general topic lke "ethnic cuisine". Perhaps you feel differently, I don't know. BTW, could you address the "too many images" tag I added to
Native Hawaiian cuisine. It currently has an insane total of 24 images in a 22 kB article, which is not supported by any policy, guideline, or practice. Since you seem to have more an expertise at dealing with images than I do, I would appreciate it if you would fix that situation. Thanks.
Viriditas (
talk)
21:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)