Misplaced Pages

User talk:Northamerica1000

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OccultZone (talk | contribs) at 16:04, 18 January 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:04, 18 January 2015 by OccultZone (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This user is busy, and a timely response may not occur at times.
  • If emailing notify me here using a {{You've got mail}} template, otherwise, you may not receive a response.


Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130

Threads older than 20 days are typically archived. Some may be archived sooner.

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
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 Misplaced Pages. 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

Hi User:Raffobeast: Per the discussion at Misplaced Pages: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. NorthAmerica 13:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

  • Hello Raffobeast: Sources that were in the article, as well as those above, are mostly non-reliable per Misplaced Pages'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. NorthAmerica 01:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

  • 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 AMERICA 01:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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))

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)

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)

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)

  • Hello Ankababel: A problem is that per the deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry, the journal was found to not meet Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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. NorthAmerica 01:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
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 Misplaced Pages. The closest guideline relative to the subject is Misplaced Pages:Notability (academic journals), which is not a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion. NorthAmerica 09:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
Thanks DGG for the clarification. I knew that, but for whatever reason, I thought about WP:REFUND, rather than the correct Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. (facepalm) NorthAmerica 09:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NorthAmerica and DGG for the further clarifications. To summarize, I need to go to Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

  • 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. NorthAmerica 10:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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, Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 AMERICA 00:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. There is no minimum for participants in said discussions. NORTH AMERICA 23:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

??

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)

  • 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 AMERICA 04:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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)

A cookie for you!

Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--L235 (talk) Ping when replying 23:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Closure of the "Behavioral Competencies" AFD

Hello, I've noticed that you have recently closed the AFD that I nominated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Behavioral Competencies as "no consensus". I found it a little amusing because it is impossible to form consensus when nobody even makes a comment in a period of three weeks. But jokes aside, should I have just used the PROD instead of AFD? And looking forward, is it possible to tag it for PROD now? My understanding is that it is not allowed after an AFD, but in this case it is possible to argue that an AFD didn't happen. Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Athomeinkobe: Per the letter of the rule, I'd have to say no to a prod. Per WP:PROD, it states "PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for articles PRODed before or previously discussed on AfD". Despite the fact that no discussion occurred, the article was nominated for deletion and listed in the AfD logs, so I can't recommend for you to go against the rules. NORTH AMERICA 01:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine!

Sunshine!
Hello Northamerica1000! Bhootrina (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Bhootrina (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Hotels

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Hotels for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter (indicate) @ 21:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive conduct on AfD

Can you see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Indian century (3rd nomination)? The nominator who previously edit warred on this article as well as Chinese Century seems to have a habit of making copy-paste argument and copying the sentences of opponent and heavily wikilaywering. I have removed his comment twice and he still don't seem to be understanding WP:BLUD. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone: I recommend for you to just leave the comment in place at the AfD discussion, let the user have their say, and to counter their argument in the discussion with your evidence to the contrary. Regarding the discussion at the link you provided above in re the Chinese Century article, if you feel that the matter cannot be solved through discussion, check out options to resolve the matter at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where other editors can opine, WP:THIRDOPINION and the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. NORTH AMERICA 01:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It was hardly 1 minute after when I had already replied on AfD and got to know that you have replied here. Although the matter at Chinese Century was resolved. I would rather wait for the Snow Keep and move discussion to the talk page if it becomes too big. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
User:OccultZone: I strongly recommend NOT moving any content at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Indian century (3rd nomination) to its (presently red-linked) AfD talk page. Just leave all commentary on the main discussion page. People are likely to miss any discussion on the AfD talk page. NORTH AMERICA 01:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Fine. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The only disruptive conduct is OccultZone deleting other arguments he doesn't like. OccultZone is doing the same thing as well as resorting to personal attacks. Please evaluate OccultZone's conduct at Talk:Indian Century, Talk:Chinese Century, as well as harrassment on my talk page. Xharm (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Xharm & User:OccultZone: Regarding the articles, I again recommend that you guys check out getting other editor opinions regarding these matters. Regarding the discussion at Talk:Chinese Century, since another editor (User:NeilN) has commented in that thread, it should stay in place. I have restored the discussion at Talk:Chinese Century (diff). Please just leave it in place at this point. NORTH AMERICA 01:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I have carefully read your edit summary and I think that you might not be aware of the reason behind that removal. Xharm had copied this thread copied from his UTP, much of the discussion of this thread was about his conduct and also concerned other article Indian Century. Whenever we are discussing about multiple articles, either a board or UTP has to be used. He may have copied this thread only to deflect the criticism made on his UTP, and by bringing this all to ATP, much of the discussion would clearly seem illogical. It is removable per WP:REFACTOR, "Removal of off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material." I am not asking you to revert your move but I am sure that you know that I had good reason behind removing it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Duly noted, and I am aware of WP:REFACTOR. Much of the discussion does concern the Chinese Century article, though, and since another user commented, it seemed best to reinstate the content. Perhaps consider contacting User:NeilN and ask if they're okay with the information being removed. NORTH AMERICA 09:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Another problem is that throughout, he is continuously copying and pasting my messages as an answer to me, and also never forgetting to include "Stop making personal attacks", when I have never made one. It is usually better to remove such inflammatory discussion that is not going to serve any purpose. Neither I am interested in discussing same thing on multiple talk pages because I had already brought this to ANI. Sure we can see if NeilN is fine with removing it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I notified NeilN about this discussion on their talk page (diff). NORTH AMERICA 10:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
If it will allow editors to move forward and focus the discussion on content, I'm fine with my comment being removed. --NeilN 15:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for informing us.  Done OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)