User talk:Northamerica1000/Archive 1

WP:TAFI
Thank you for joining the project and thank you also for your improvements to the main page. Automatic Strikeout  16:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This new project is a neat idea! Northamerica1000(talk) 23:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I wanted to mention a couple of things. First, Articles for improvement is not (as far as I know) officially connected to the TAFI project. I noticed you added it to a category you created regarding TAFI but it probably doesn't belong in that category. Also, regarding the category you created, I had already created and we probably don't need both, so I'm not sure what to do about that. A final question, do you know how to adjust the former TAFI template so that any talk page it is placed on will be put into a category of former TAFI's?  Automatic  Strikeout  20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about all of this too. Some changes per the above:
 * Removed Category:Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement from Articles for improvement. They seemed to be of the same origin, but apparently they're not.
 * Replaced the Category:Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement cats with your Category:Today's article for improvement.
 * After updating with your already-created category, nominated Category:Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement for speedy deletion.
 * — Thanks for informing me about these matter. I need more time to research your last question. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for being bold and making some changes. It's good to see somebody else taking a hand in the TAFI housekeeping. Automatic  Strikeout  20:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
Cheers! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the grub! Happy Halloween! Northamerica1000(talk) 23:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for the star, it is appreciated! Northamerica1000(talk) 23:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Invite
Hey, thanks for the invite. I have no objection to joining the Rescue Squadron, but I doubt I'll increase my contributions. I've never been a particularly active wikipedian, but I *have* been rescuing articles before the ARS was created ;)  Th e S te ve   09:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've noticed some of your work to improve articles nominated for deletion, and decided to send the invitation. Feel free to join the project at any time if you're interested! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 22:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Gardening
Hello North. I apologise for not responding to your recent efforts to engage me in the Horticulture and Gardening WikiProject; unfortunately I have slid into a bit of a depression over the last couple of weeks, and haven't felt able to contribute very collaboratively. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries. I've appreciated collaborating with you, and look forward to such in the future. This being Wikipedia, there's no rush. Have a good one, and please keep in touch. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion notices received from User:Stefan2 (consolidated into this thread)

 * File:Enneagram.gif
 * File:USS Hornet.jpg
 * File:Jaguar XK6 engine.jpg
 * File:Smallsword.jpg
 * File:Stretched Earlobe.jpg
 * File:Chinatown1.jpg
 * File:Grevillea.jpg
 * File:Himeji Castle 2.jpg
 * File:NagasakiSofukuji.jpg
 * File:Kirkjubaejarklaustur.jpg
 * File:Thunderbirds.jpg
 * File:Walter savage landor.jpg
 * File:Jiangsu.png
 * File:Blackeagle.jpg
 * File:Lyndon B. Johnson.jpg

Stefan2 (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for provision of the notices. I've consolidated them all into this one thread for ease of reading, retaining your most recent timestamp/signature above. Thanks again for the notices. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

big.LITTLE
In fact, you are wrong with you closing statement. The original was correct, the revised ones not. It does not matter, but still I want point that out. The original article I have nominated was a draconian, spam-thingy. By the time I withdrew my nomination, it was improved to a crisp & clear neutral article. So it was not the wrong article I nominated, but my amazement that it was improved so much in just two days. The Banner talk 12:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, from which I have revised the closure of Articles for deletion/Big.LITTLE. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 21:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you
I had literally just ripped off an email to them saying it will take a week or two (AfC usually has a backup). Is it brown-nosing to give a barnstar where I am working on a COI basis? ;-) Corporate 01:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the star. You may want to consider adding a notice to the Code 42 Software article's talk page if you have a conflict-of-interest due to involvement with the company. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You bet. I guess my disclosure at the top of the AfC submission was missed. I'll have to make it more prominent next time. Corporate 14:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw the initial disclosure statement at the lead of the article when it was at AfC, but it was ambiguous, and it was more appropriate for you to post the notice on the talk page of the article yourself, which I notice that you did! Happy editing, Northamerica1000(talk) 14:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar
I appreciate the barnstar you gave me for adding the past history to the Star Wars Episode VII article. I saw the request at ARS and it seem exactly the kind of thing I like to do (early history of a topic). It's always interesting looking back. The attitude in September 2006 was a resounding never going to happen as reflected in Articles for deletion/Star Wars Episode VII. Lucas' own statements from 2002-2012 really close off a lot of likely plot avenues for Episode VII, so it is going to be interesting to see where the storyline goes. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Exceptional work, and thanks again for donating your time to improve this article for the public. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lists of organisms by their population
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Automatic Strikeout  21:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation (TEST)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get | live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Northamerica1000(talk) 09:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 *  Note : this template message was intentionally sent here as part of a test . It's not pertinent to an 'actual' Articles for creation entry. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

AFCH request
Following your recommendation concerning the AFC helper, I’ve modified the template and removed the appreciative message that appeared whenever an editor rejected a submission as comical or disingenuous. Mephistophelian (contact)  09:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Thanks. I've added an additional comment at the discussion. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Mt king  (edits)  10:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

italic
Hi,

Do you know why the name O'Higgins in the article Chilean ship O'Higgins isn't italic?

Article Chilean ship Capitán Prat shows its name in italic and both have the template

Thanks in advance, --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Keysanger. I found a surprisingly detailed page regarding the naming conventions for ships on Wikipedia at Naming conventions (ships). Check out the section there titled "Disambiguating ships with the same name." The lack of italicization on the Chilean ship O'Higgins page could be because the page serves as a disambiguation page. The page has two red links, in which it may be unclear whether or not the red-linked ships are military ships (although in my opinion it seems likely that they are, because they begin with the country's name).


 * I'd perform research first regarding the two red links prior to adding italics to the disambiguation page, as a matter of caution. Another reason for the lack of italics could simply be that the matter was overlooked by an editor.


 * Additional related information can be found at Ship prefix, Article titles and WP:ITALIC. Additionally, people at WikiProject Ships may be able to provide more information. Hope this helps out! Northamerica1000(talk) 22:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi NA1000,
 * both are disambiguation pages, both have the same structure and tags and all ships are naval ships. Some names have to be changed to observe the naming convention but it takes some time. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Keysanger. I was a little groggy when answering the above due to a severe flu; your question regards layout. It may be that the Wiki software isn't reading the "O'Higgins" part of the title due to the apostrophe in the title. Strange variances similar to this occur from time to time. I tried moving the tag around on the Chilean ship O'Higgins page, but it didn't italicize title in the appropriate area. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

List of pastries
Yay! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Anna. Thanks for providing the statistics update. It appears that Wikipedia's readers find this article appealing, and I continue to be surprised by its increasing popularity. From November 4, 2012 to November 11, 2012, it received over 1,000 page views a day. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed. I'm very pleased. There must be sites linking to it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Society nominated as Featured Portal candidate

 * Portal:Society

I've nominated Portal:Society for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Society.

Note: I'm notifying you because previously commented at the featured portal candidacy discussion for Portal:Arts at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Arts, and it'd be nice to have a relatively more prompt resolution on this particular one as it's also part of the Main Page Featured Portal drive.

Thank you for your time, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

RfA?
Have you ever considered running for adminship? Automatic Strikeout  23:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * At this time, I feel that I have sound experience in contributing to the encyclopedia to assist in the administration of Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and consensus in an egalitarian and equitable manner. I have a great deal of experience with computers and utilizing the internet, and becoming an administrator would be a positive step. Importantly, being an administrator significantly increases one's responsibility on Wikipedia, and I would utilize the administrative tools in a productive, yet judicious and discerning manner. I perform a significant amount of clean-up on Wikipedia, so access to “the mop” be helpful in enabling the performance of more of these types of activities. Thanks for your query regarding this matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you would like for me to nominate you? Automatic  Strikeout  00:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you know of anyone who you believe would be interested in co-noming? Automatic  Strikeout  01:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had fortunate occurrences of positive, ongoing collaborations with several editors on Wikipedia, but I'm hesitant to provide user names or notify them about this matter. I hesitate because this could possibly introduce the potential of bias in the nomination if I'm involved in the notification of others regarding its formulation. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well. Btw, are you a male or a female? (It would be kind of bad if I didn't get it right in my nomination). Automatic  Strikeout  01:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a male editor. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks (I had to ask the other editor I nominated as well). With regards to the two things mentioned below, I believe admins are required to have email enabled and the edit count opt-in would be really helpful too. I have the nomination written out here, but the page is of course not ready yet for primetime. Automatic  Strikeout  01:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, it would be helpful if you could create this page with any content and enable an email address. If you don't want to use your personal email, you could create another email account which uses your Wikipedia username. Automatic  Strikeout  01:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been aware of the EditCounterOptIn.js and email options for quite some time, and will enable them in the very near future. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. After you do that, you'll need to answer the first 3 questions before the RfA can become official. Automatic  Strikeout  01:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Will do. I've appreciated this conversation, your positive disposition (here and elsewhere) and helpful advice! I'm going offline soon due to work obligations. I may check in later when I'm at work to address the nomination page, if I have the opportunity, and if not, I'll check in tomorrow. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 01:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is fine. Once everything is taken care of, please let me know (although I'll probably be watching, if around). Automatic  Strikeout  01:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating the optin page. However, I think the fact that you blanked it might be causing a problem, because the edit stats aren't showing up like they ought to be. Automatic  Strikeout  03:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've got the edit stats on the RfA talk page. Looks like you've enabled email as well, so all that remains is for you to answer the questions and the RfA can go live! Automatic  Strikeout  03:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, email for Wikipedia correspondence has been enabled, and User:Northamerica1000/EditCounterOptIn.js enabled. Information for the RfA will be performed in the near future, as I need to be going for now. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. Hopefully, I will still be up when you get it done. If I am, I will try to transclude the RfA and get it underway. Automatic  Strikeout  03:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: I've completed the questions at Requests for adminship/Northamerica1000. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And the RfA has now gone live. Thank you for your help. You can always tell your friends that your run for adminship began on the same day as the 2012 United States Presidential Election! Automatic  Strikeout  23:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contributing your time and effort regarding this nomination. It is appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I'm rather optimistic right now but we'll see what happens. Automatic  Strikeout  00:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it was worth a try. Was saying on RFA talk just before the launch, the process is often highly random. You can never tell in advance if a great candidate is going to receive unwarranted opposition. North, as a semi regular RfA participant, I can tell you most experienced candidates withdraw once their support drops below 60%, some even when it's under 70.  This possibly helps them pass next time, and can avoid prolonging drama. Several candidates have passed on a second attempt, even if they received a severe harrowing on their first run. The ARS legend MQS is a good example of this. Im not saying you should withdraw if you don't want to, maybe there is value in letting the discussion continue. Just letting you know its the traditional thing to do. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that you're probably doing yourself more harm than good by letting the RfA continue at this point. You can withdraw it early by posting at WP:BN.  ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _  16:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm undecided at this time. While withdrawal may have the potential to increase the possibility of acceptance in a future RfA, this could also then possibly be perceived by some as a biased move to increase one's chances in the future. Additionally, the discussion has provided a forum to learn about the opinions of other editors regarding my activity on Wikipedia, and some useful constructive criticism has occurred there. Also, additional questions have been posted there which I have responded to. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's good to be aware of others perceptions, but it's sometimes wiser just to do what you think is best. If you worry too much about what others are thinking you can come across as insincere. Most dont mind one not always following the crowd providing one comes across as fair and honest. (Which you normally do, I hope you noticed how before you resigned, you had several supporters that seem to be on the delete side of the inclusion spectrum.) You should probably only keep the RfA open if you think it will continue to be a productive discussion.  One the one hand you might succeed in explaining your side of things a little better, and there's a tiny chance you'll get more useful feedback. The bright side of this RfA is that there's been a way above average amount of helpful advice on other.  On the other hand, the objectionable treatment by some of such an productive and admireable editor as yourself, is looking increasingly likely to cause drama, which may cause lasting bad feeling.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with FeydHuxtable on doing what you think is best independent of others. This advice was given to me from my own RfA as a caution on commenting on other's comments. Editor review might be a better forum to solicit more comments a few months from now.—Bagumba (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * North, just added some realistic feedback to the RfA as Im guessing from your remarks to others that you'd welcome some more balanced views on there. If you'd like me to add a much longer comment justifying the remark & also offering you some constructive criticism which may help you understand why things have gone down the way they have, just let me know. If youd appreciate it, Im happy to write at length by email, on your talk or the RfA.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Feyd. I welcome your input on my talk page. At this point, this thread is getting long, and the provision of your thoughts by starting a new thread would help to keep the information better-organized on this page. Communication on this talk page is my strongly preferred medium of communication (versus email, etc.) I've appreciated your useful commentary and friendly demeanor in the past, and look forward to hearing more from you. Best regards, Northamerica1000(talk) 10:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you still think that after you get the message as it will be very long! Have some meetings to go to, but will almost certainly have time to type it out later this evening. Part of what I have to say is both critical and peronal, but I think it will be helpful enough to be worth saying. If you'd rather not have that sort of comment on your talk you could always make an exception to your email rule, or just say you'd prefer a more generalised comment in which case it will maybe be less useful but also a lot shorter.  If you dont say anything I'll go ahead and create the new section as soon as time allows. In the meantime mate, hope the flu is starting to clear up. Stay warm and here are some vitamin C rich strawberries for you! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Erdbeerteller01.jpg

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing - TILDA, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork (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) 11:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Get well soon
I am sorry to see that the notice heading the talk page of userpage states that you currently have influenza. Do get well soon! I know what these things can be like - I have had a bad sniff myself these past few days, but at least it is not influenza! Again, do get well soon! With very best wishes, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Influenza treatment is an awful lot of text for a sick person to read. Hmm... drink plenty of Sprite and orange juice is what I was taught.  I think club soda works just as well, and doesn't have the sugar.  Wear a mask so you don't infect others in the household.  And remember in the future, never tough your mouth, nose, or ears after going outside, until you wash your hands.  Also if someone tries to shake your hand during flu season you need to smack them.  Unsanitary heathens.   D r e a m Focus  17:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good wishes, and the Influenza treatment article was an interesting read. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month
I added questions for everyone who made a submission at the October CEM contest. Please answer when you have a chance. Thanks! —Torchiest talkedits 18:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

✅. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for adminship
I hope that doesn't put you off continuing to be a productive member of the community.

Stuartyeates (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 
 * Hi Stuartyeates. Thanks for the kitten, and please see my second comment in the "Your RfA" section directly below. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hi Northamerica1000. I'm sorry to report that I have closed your RfA as unsuccessful. Please let me know if you have any questions. 28bytes (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it didn't work out. Maybe at some point in the future. Automatic Strikeout  03:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again AutomaticStrikeout for investing your time and energy to create the RfA page and for your participation in the discussion therein. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Here's hoping you get feeling better. Automatic  Strikeout  16:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I felt I couldn't support you this time, and I hope you'll continue adding useful contributions as you've been doing. All the best. -- Trevj (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I plan on continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. My interest in helping Wikipedia through administrative work isn't correlated with the likelihood of my continued participation on Wikipedia in other areas, such as article creation, improving the encyclopedia, etc. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * NA, I hope you return to ARS, as you have done valuable work there, and have far more of an impact on building an encyclopedia than admin work would add.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings Milowent. I've been considering leaving the project for awhile, in part to simplify my presence on Wikipedia. Despite all of the project's merits, it is quite apparent that some editors simply don't like it, and then unfortunately transfer that dislike onto its members. Despite all I've done in sincere efforts to maintain neutrality on the project, such as nominating the rescue template for community discussion here, adding the project code of conduct to some of its pages, creating the rescue list to promote transparency and dialogue, etc., quite strong biases against the project continue to this very day. I'm tired of being typecast per membership in a particular Wikiproject: it (typecasting, negative comments, etc.) detracts from building and maintaining the encyclopedia, and the negativity directed toward me per membership in the project is counterproductive and tiresome. Conversely, as a counter-example, I'm also a member of WikiProject Ecology, but I haven't received any complaints whatsoever about my membership there. The negativity doesn't provide any functionality; rather it just takes time away from improving the encyclopedia. I will still be contributing to Wikipedia, and please feel to stay in touch. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The haters have driven away many dedicated people at times. People keep attacking the Rescue Squadron everywhere I go, even on a debate now at Wikipedia_talk:Notability where they want to add in new language to help delete articles even easier, saying meeting the notability guidelines don't matter, people can still destroy articles they don't like.  No reason at all, they just bring up the ARS, and take some swings at it.  I guess they sense what they are trying to do is the opposite of what the ARS stands for.   D r e a m Focus  15:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Dreamfocus: is a "hater" the same thing as a "hatter", or is it vice versa?" Northamerica1000(talk) 10:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Noria
Hi North America,

Thanks so much for the barnstar! Disambiguation is important to me, so I greatly appreciate your encouragement of my edits in this area.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your efforts to better-organize how information is presented in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Julia Budd Entry
Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbi18w (talk • contribs) 05:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 05:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice on recently edited article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher J. Howell
Thank you for your review of my submitted article "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher J. Howell". As I am a beginner and will continue to read up on tips to get this article approved I wanted to ask you since you reviewed the artilce what additional pointers/tips and major problems you saw with the article. Thank you for your time! JordanJAH (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Jordan Hora.
 * Hello JordanJAH. I noticed that a draft of this page is located at User:JHora/sandbox, which was created on 14 October 2012‎. Is User:JHora another user account that you created? It appears that the submission was possibly copied and pasted from User:JHora's sandbox to your sandbox page (located here: User:JordanJAH/sandbox), although this is not showing up on your sandbox page's revision history. I notice that another editor then moved information from your sandbox page to the Articles for creation entry, although the submission was already present at Articles for creation prior to the move (see ).


 * The article needs to include sourcing and inline citations to verify information within it and qualify the topic's notability. I've performed some page layout changes to the submission (located here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher J. Howell) to assist you with the article. Check out Wikipedia's Manual of style and Manual of Style/Layout regarding article composition and page layout. Also, check out these Wikipedia's pages regarding the sourcing of Wikipedia articles: identifying reliable sources and adding inline citations. Regarding copyright matters on Wikipedia, please be sure to read Copyright violations. There are also these pages that provide useful information regarding topic notability (see WP:N) and the verification of information in articles (see WP:V). Northamerica1000(talk) 05:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted both the AfC page and the sandbox as copyright violations from. Compare e.g.

"As the sole TV Host and Executive Producer of "Man Talk", a talk show designed to evangelize, encourage and empower men, Howell utilized his ability to create relevant and thought provoking topics concerning men."

with

"As the sole TV Host & Executive Producer of Man Talk, a talk show designed to evangelize, encourage and empower men, Mr. Howell utilizes his ability to create relevant and thought provoking topics concerning men."

and

"Some of his guests included: spiritual leader and New York Times best-selling author, Bishop T.D. Jakes, author and First Lady of The Potter’s House Serita A. Jakes, President & CEO of Williams Fried Chicken, Hiawatha Williams, and Football Hall-Of-Fame inductee Michael Irvin."

with

"Some of his guests include: World-renowned''' spiritual leader and New York Times Best-Selling Author, Bishop T.D.Jakes, Author and First Lady of the Potter’s House Serita A. Jakes, President & CEO of Williams Fried Chicken, Hiawatha Williams, and Football Hall-Of-Fame inductee Michael Irvin."

Fram (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Fram, nice work in copyvio detection. Regarding this (now deleted) submission, I utilized Copyvio Detector, over 15 Google searches to detect copyvio by copying and pasting text from the submission into Google, and other searches, all of which showed no sign of copyvio. I also searched for whether or not this person had a homepage, but it didn't initially show up on Google searches (see this Google search, one of the several searches I utilized).


 * In this Google search, the link you provided above doesn't currently show up until page 9, and wasn't found because I didn't look this far into the search results, only to about 6 or 7 pages. After this, the likelihood of this person having a home page seemed unlikely, per Google's superior search algorithms, which would usually list the site earlier on in its results per relevance to the search criteria (which in this case is the person's name). Upon continued scrolling up to page 20 of the Google search, the link on page 9 is the only link for anything from www.chrishowellonline.com.


 * I did notice that the composition of the submission had a promotional tone, and was concerned about potential copyright violations due to an increased likelihood of the submission copy being sourced from promotional websites.


 * Perhaps the link you provided doesn't appear until page 9 of the search because of the manner in which "online" is at the end of the person's name ("chrishowellonline.com"). If a search for the person's website isn't listed until page 9 on the Google search, searches for text within that website will naturally occur even further out in the Google search results. At any rate, nice work in detecting copyvio, and rest assured that all of your advice is appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I found the page by posting ""designed to evangelize, encourage and empower men"" in Google search. Often, with people whose name isn't that unique, you can improve the search by adding a key pharse for them, e.g. . Fram (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent. However, the likelihood of AfC reviewers utilizing these types of exacting searches to try and find copyvios to this degree is very slim at best. I notice you've commented at the WikiProject AfC talkpage, and as you're aware, I've started discussion threads at WikiProject Articles for creation in hopes to improve matters regarding copyvio detection. It would be a shame for people who work there to help the encyclopedia to be denied adminship in the future due not detecting copyvios by utilizing extended research such as yours, particularly since there's currently a serious lack of functional instructions on the Reviewing instructions page for the project. It's important to realize that not detecting copyright violations that are difficult to find is certainly not the same thing as writing them, not by a long shot. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I tried to be clear at your RfA that you have not written any copyvios as far as I am aware, and that you are not moving copyvios to the mainspace knowingly. But the AfC (not only you, also DGG and others) need to be more careful, and if that means doing more manual work instead of relying on the technical tools available, then so be it. being slower and having a larger backlog is less of a problem than publishing copyright violations, and going through the AfC certainly gives the impression of Wikipedia giving these articles a "stamp of approval" (similar to DYK articles which turn out to be copyvios). It will never be failproof, e.g. straight translations, or copyvios from offline sources, are obviously much harder to detect, but there are too many articles slipping through the cracks now. Fram (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (This is intended to be sarcastic humor). Perhaps if I just discontinue helping out at WP AfC altogether, chances of future adminship would be improved. Of course, this would be somewhat cowardiced, but many new admins don't participate there whatsoever! Due to this non-participation, chances would be improved, because this equates to a lessened likelihood of criticism. Participation there appears to have a direct correlation with lessened chances of serving to help out the encyclopedia with administrative duties. Maybe I'll focus more on participating at AN, ANI, Requests for closure, etc. instead! Northamerica1000(talk) 10:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm aside, you have a point. When you do nothibng, you can't make any mistakes. Of course, when you really do nothing, you can't become an admin either... But sticking to areas where one has more expertise and is less likely to make too many mistakes can be considered a strength needed in admins of course, and perhaps AfC wasn't the best area for you in that regard. But these aren't easy decisions or things to advice one, it could equally be that after three months of ANI participation, you have blown any chance of ever becoming an admin (or lost any appetite for it), such things are hard to predict. Fram (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, many current admins don't participate at WikiProject Articles for creation either! Why is that? Should they fear being de-sysoped if they make errors in the detection of hard-to-find copyvios? This would certainly deter admins from participating there! Seems like no matter how one looks at it, participation in that WikiProject can be problematic, which is no fun. When participation isn't fun, people stop participating. Perhaps we can work together to improve copyvio detection matters there. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have quite advanced skills in copyvio and plagiarism detection. Sometimes searches don't yield exacting results per people's locales, sometimes Google flounders, sometimes search engines yield different results, sometimes Copyvio Detector doesn't find them, and sometimes Wikipedia editors may not perform hundreds of copyvio searches for one AfC submission. Regarding the latter, the average editor at WP AfC is quite unlikely to take it to this extreme. Even if they do, nobody will have a 100% success rate in detecting them, though, unless perhaps they spend a truly disproportionate amount of time working to find them for just one AfC submission. AfC is routinely severely backlogged, which naturally lends to a lessened likelihood of people spending enormous amounts of time in hopes to detect copyvios for one entry. Hopefully the assessment page at WP AfC regarding copyvios will be improved soon, as I have proposed on the talk page there. People should all be held to the same standards regarding this very particular matter, regardless of whether or not they're editors, possess administrative tools or desire adminship. The bar should be identical for all. Perhaps people at WP AfC should be warned that if they fail to detect a copyvio, chances of adminship will be severely diminished? Or even worse, place a warning there to alert people to avoid the project if they're interested in future adminship, as participation in the project can significantly reduce chances of adminship acceptance should any errors in copyvio detection occur? Of course not; just improve guidelines for copyvio detection at the project, as I've proposed on the project's talk page! Northamerica1000(talk) 11:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * After consideration, contributors to WikiProject AFC should have fair warning, so I've posted a comment there. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Fran,


 * 1) I regard your G12 as incorrect. G12, according to WP:CSD is appropriate only when the entire article is copyvio, and we often extend the interpretation a little to where essentially all the article is substantially copyvio. This does not appear to me to be the case; rather, it looks like isolated sentences have been improperly used. This requires removal of the material, or, if scattered through the article, blanking, but not deletion of the article. Were it an article on NPP we would list it on copyright problems, but we have not I think used that for AfC, and it would in many cases   be excessive, considering that most article at afc  would not be accepted in any case.  (For one of the instances where I was careless, this was exactly the case: not all the article was copyvio, but the article was in any case not worth working on.) For the other two errors of mine you caught, one was in missing one of many internal pages, and the other was just lack of sleep on my part in not spotting on the face of it that it was overwhelmingly likely to be copyvio.
 * 2) Anyone checking for copyvio will miss things. . It is easy with copyvio to make errors in both directions, and I regard an incorrect judgment of something to be copyvio almost as wrong as missing one. (After all, a  missing one will be caught by somebody else, but the editor of an wrongly deleted article is likely never to return.)  Our true defense against    copyvio is the same as for other problems: multiple eyes.
 * 3) The afc process is so flawed that in my opinion it needs to be  redone from scratch. I've made many criticisms there. Those of us who are trying to work there are dealing not just with poor material, but drastic errors in assessment in all directions, of which the most common is to find only one of many problems, and often not the most important one; the most frequent is saying inadequate references for notability when the true message ought to be hopelessly non-notable--the person simply adds another inadequate reference and resubmits, which helps neither them nor anyone, and multiplies the work.  But we need reviewers there so urgently that it is necessary to help them learn, not blame them.
 * 4) The appropriate message to someone missing a copyvio is a note telling them about it so they see what to look for, not a general accusation of carelessness. What the detector ought to feel is pride at their own accomplishments, not scorn for the other party. Were I an inexperienced editor, your saying at multiple places at wp in the last 2 days that i was missing copyvio might, as NA said, have caused me to leave afc altogether. As it is, I know perfectly well, just as NA knows, that I am pretty good at it. I probably miss a few percent, and I do not really expect to work at higher accuracy in anything, especially at the speed necessary in WP. You partially specialize in this, and therefore I expect you'll do a little better than I.   As it is, I know that when I differ from you on how to handle copyvio, you are   right about 2/3 of the time, but I am right the other 1/3. Even when I am right, I've learned it is unproductive to argue them with you.  DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Lyshriol
Hi- I found more cruft from the same series: Eubians, Rhon psion, Ruby Empire, Skolian Empire. I believe they should all be merged into Saga of the Skolian Empire (with some reduction). Need some help: would you be willing to nominate these other four articles? You might be able to include them as part of the same AfD to make it easy. I'll do the merge if there is consensus for the bunch. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Rather than nominating the other's for deletion, you can simply 1) perform a bold merge with redirects, 2) Start merge discussions for the articles. Simply merging and redirecting could be the best way to go, and could consolidate all of the information in one place.


 * In the event of merging, attribution to the articles from which data was merged from is required to be in place is required, due to Wikipedia's licensing requirements which require proper attribution. For more information, see Copying within Wikipedia and Merging. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah I just don't want to get caught up in a debate with fans or worry about it being undone later. An AfD will pave the way and make it unambiguous. See Category:Saga of the Skolian Empire. Many of those redirects were previously articles that went through AfDs. For example Articles for deletion/Roca Skolia (2nd nomination) (a 4-article nom). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I always research matters regarding topic notability prior to nominating articles for deletion, per section D of WP:BEFORE, which takes time. At this time, I don't have the interest to perform all of the research for those articles to assess and determine the notability for each respective topic. It's easier to simply perform merges and redirects. If another editor disagrees, this also allows the option of them to undo the changes and improve the stand-alone articles. If you choose to nominate them for deletion, deleted content is usable in a merge provided that proper attribution is provided, per the "Reusing deleted material" section of the Copying within Wikipedia page, where it states (in part) "If an article is deleted, its history is removed and thus its content cannot be reused on Wikipedia—even under the same article title—unless attribution is otherwise provided (or the page undeleted)." Northamerica1000(talk) 09:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

RfA
I just wanted to say something. Look, I don't like you, at all. We've not have good interactions, at all. However, I think you are a net positive to the project, I think your participation in ARS has been helpful and you shouldn't have resigned, and I think you exemplify everything a keep !voter at AFD should be when you improve the articles you are voting keep on. Your edit count might be slightly inflated, but those edits are spent improving articles so it doesn't matter. And your ability to find every last scrape of a source on a subject is quite impressive even if the sources don't always meet the threshold of WP:RS. Finally, I want to say that I appreciate the time you put into the project. I would hate to see your RFA discourage you from continuing to participate in Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 13:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi NorthAmerica1000, you are probably looking at that RFA and feeling a tad shitty. I know I did for much of my first RFA. But RFA is a strange process, and I still think how bizarre it was that my second RFA was such a complete turnaround from the first. You've got the advantage that two of the main reasons why people opposed you are now resolved, and though that may not make enough difference to carry you through this time, it probably will by Easter. My advice would be to let this one continue to run, then forget RFA for three months. After that, have a look at it again, see if there are any problems that you haven't fixed anyway, and if you still fancy it have a run in March or April.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to echo what TParis said. I (and many others) appreciate the work you do for ARS and hope that rather than resigning, you will keep doing what you have done in the past. I've seen RfA discourage other editors for contributing, and hope that doesn't happen to you. Legoktm (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not give up with ARS or your editing. Opposes and even supports voiced at RfA are often pertaining solely to what editors are looking for in a blocker or a deleter, not a content-creator.  dci  &#124; <font color="purple" face= "Times New Roman"> TALK   19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I guess I don't agree with everything TParis says--I, for instance, see no problem in an admin being a member of the ARS. In your case, you felt pressured to quit it because a lot of editors hold that against you, but that is never a reason for me to oppose you or anyone, and I think those others, including my valued colleague TParis, are simply wrong. I do think that it's time to close the RfA, but that's up to you of course. I admire you, BTW, for having the balls to start it in the first place. Regards, Drmies (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * At this time, I'd prefer to let the RfA run its course, as useful constructive criticism has occurred there. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I never criticized NA1K for ARS participation; neither here nor on the RFA.--v/r - TP 14:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. However, this won't change people's perceptions, as evidenced in comments at the RfA such as "Strong Oppose per the ARS issues TParis brought up." People skimming the discussion may see this and then simply assume those are the types of matters you brought up in your comment. Perhaps consider commenting there regarding this matter. Additionally, I would like for you to please respond to the comments I have placed there underneath your oppose !vote. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ditto to what Drmies has stated. I also admire your work and your passion for the project. While I do not support your RFA at this, it may be something I could very well change in the future. I also hope this does not discourage you or change your desire to edit in any way.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Section break

 * Hello TParis. I noticed at the RfA discussion (located here Requests for adminship/Northamerica1000) that you provided a brief response there, but chose not to address the actual content of my comments there. Your reply there was
 * "I was asked to respond. I chose not to because these responses are not directed at me, they are directed at others. Have NA1K referred to me in 2nd voice, hence directing the comments at me, I'd surely feel part of a discussion where response was necessary. As they are directed at others, I feel this is indicative of the talking over others that I mentioned earlier."
 * TParis, notice how at the discussion I invited you to discuss matters on my talk page, and how in my third comment there I began it with "Hello TParis." Of course the comments were directed toward you. As a community discussion, others could have commented as well, if they wished. Seriously, please read WP:AVOIDYOU in entirety, where it states that wording comments in second-person is discouraged (e.g. "the word "you" should be avoided when possible.") It states there (in part):
 * As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people.


 * This is part of Wikipedia's No personal attacks policy page. I was simply being polite in my text at the RfA and respecting this policy. As an administrator on Wikipedia, you should become familiar with this policy; it appears that you may not be aware of it.


 * The reply you provided at the RfA is an argumentum ad hominem in entirety, in which instead of replying to good-faith comments, as I politely requested above earlier in this discussion, you conveniently changed the subject at RfA entirely, hand-waving and finger-pointing about wp:idht. The comments at RfA were plainly directed toward you, and you were asked here to respond to them at RfA. I welcome you to address my comments regarding your !vote at the RfA here on my talk page at this time, since the RfA has been closed. If you choose to respond here, please do so in a civil and respectful manner.


 * Lastly, please consider wording your commentary more politely and neutrally when communicating on Wikipedia. Statements within your comments such as “...I don't like you...” as you wrote above when you started this header on my talk page are impolite, and are counterproductive to the transpiration of functional discussion. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You continue to not get it. Look, I came here to say that I respect your work even if I don't particularly like your methodology.  However, many editors including me have brought up how you Wikilawyer and talk over others.  This is a perfect example.  You've brought up a policy about personal attacks.  Discussion is not a personal attack and WP:AVOIDYOU isn't at all relevant.  You can say 'you' all you want when talking to me.  What that policy is about is saying things like "You're a fucking idiot" which would be a personal attack versus "A lot of fucking idiots around here" which is still disruptive but not directed at anyone in particular.  You're getting the policy wrong.  Even in your answers, you were quoting policies instead of discussing them.  My argument was not at all ad hominem.  I'm not sure you're even aware of what that means.  An ad hominem argument is where I would say "Because you are an ARS member, you must hate puppies" which is ad hominem versus "You said puppies are ugly and disgusting." which is not ad hominem.  Again, you're confusing things.  This is exactly what I brought up in the RFA.  The thing that gets me is that instead of saying "Yeah, you're right, I do do that sometimes," you try to justify (wikilawyer) your actions with policies that arn't even remotely relevant.  But none of this matters because I came here to offer words of morale support.  Even as someone who generally can't stand you, I respect your work and I'd not like to see you leave the project.  Why else have I backed off since our spat on WT:AFD?  I can argue with you in good faith.  I'm not wishing ill on you.  I'm genuinely being honest so maybe on your next RFA you can make a different impression on me.--v/r - TP 13:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, TParis. I will require more time to respond. I appreciate that you have responded, and I'll leave it at that for now. I'm not a prude, but please refrain from using swear-words on my talk page, because they tend to simply convey emotion rather than logic. Let's all work together to improve Wikipedia, now and into the future. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't using them to be abrasive, I was only using them to demonstrate a personal attack versus disruptive behavior.--v/r - TP 14:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello TParis. Re the above: "Discussion is not a personal attack and WP:AVOIDYOU isn't at all relevant." Of course discussion itself is not a personal attack. The point of WP:AVOIDYOU is to avoid wording commentary in personalized manners, and to direct commentary toward content and actions. Part of this is intended to avoid conflict on Wikipedia. By adhering to the information stated at AVOIDYOU, it serves to avoid creating situations from which people may interpret (or misinterpret) personal attacks within the content of commentary itself. Despite this, since you have stated above that you don't mind people using the word you when communicating with you, it's apparent that you aren't affected by stated writing style! Northamerica1000(talk) 05:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:AVOIDYOU is not about avoiding natural language. If you have that impression from reading it, then you've misunderstood it.  It's purpose is to get folks to address content and not make things personal.  That doesn't mean to avoid "you" in every form of speech.  You can use 'you' without it being personal when you are directing comments at a particular person.  But that's a secondary issue, the primary issue is that I've explained this already and you continue to quote policies literally rather than trying to understand their meaning.  That's the problem when I was trying to explain to you a year ago why WP:NOT is not a notability guideline.--v/r - TP 14:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well of course, WP:NOT is a Wikipedia policy page. Perhaps revisit the comments I left at the RfA regarding this matter, and be sure to click-through to all of the links I provided therein. Why did you close the AfD discussion (Articles for deletion/List of golf courses in Portugal) you quote there in your link as keep? Dude, I entirely understand what WP:NOT is. It appears that you don't approve of the way a fleeting AfD !vote was worded over 13 months ago, and yes, my second comment there was worded quite incorrectly (I remember that I was very tired). There were absolutely some errors in my second comment in the discussion; again I was fatigued. So, yes, my second comment (not the !vote) in the discussion was incorrect, but it was a grammatical error based upon fatigue. Perhaps let bygones be bygones. I made some grammatical errors 13 months ago due to fatigue! That sure was a long time ago. That's only what it was; error due to fatigue. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I closed it as keep because there were 3 AfDs about golf courses that day and the discussion at this one led to keep and so I kept consistent with consensus. I don't consider " Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article is appropriate" a grammatical error based on fatigue.  That was a blatant keep rationale based on a policy that has to do with what not to keep.  It's still relevant because you still display the same behaviors.  You cannot admit or accept when you are wrong.  I cannot support a candidate who keeps circumventing others concerns instead of owning up.  This isn't going anywhere so feel free to keep talking to yourself, you're not hearing me at all.  You are impossible to discuss anything with because your sole objective is proving your innocence.  So I'll just keep !voting oppose because you haven't improved in a year.--v/r - TP 16:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that you've misinterpreted my comment at Articles for deletion/List of golf courses in Canada (that you linked in your comment directly above) due to simple matters regarding punctuation. Perhaps if I'd used a period after the word "keep", rather than an ndash, the comment would have been clearer. Notice how I started the sentence after the ndash with a capital letter, denoting that it was the beginning of a stand-alone sentence. Here's my entire comment there, "Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like 'Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics'. The article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles for notable golf courses." The capitalization of the first word following the ndash indicates that this is the beginning of a sentence, rather than an extension of the first word in the comment. In other words, the phrase following the word "keep" wasn't the rationale. Rather, the notion that the topic and article had a discriminate focus was the rationale. Perhaps I could have worded it differently and more succinctly, such as "this topic does not qualify for deletion under WP:NOTDIR." I admit that wording the beginning of the sentence as "Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article is appropriate..." was ambiguous and could have been worded much clearer. Also, in the comment, the policy page was referred to as "guidelines," but this was a simple typographical oversight made within the context of a fleeting AfD comment. (WP:NOT is a policy page). I had and have full comprehension of WP:NOT. Hopefully this clarifies matters for you. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I already admitted making an error over 13 months ago due to fatigue. You choose to not believe, please assume good faith, or at least consider it. Yet again, when AfD nominations are incorrectly nominated under WP:NOT rationales, it is just to point out when the nomination is incorrect, and provide qualification for why a topic is not qualified for deletion per WP:NOT. Directly above, you're again relying upon ad hominen argument rather than engaging in productive discussion. I'm hearing you, I'm listening to you, but you're simply stating opinion without qualification (e.g. "It's still relevant because you still display the same behaviors"). How so? Where has this occurred? Do you perceive AfD nominations under WP:NOT as being able to be countered? I think you're being very overly-judgmental. Again, please read WP:AVOIDYOU; your style of interaction is rather crude; this isn't the military, it's Wikipedia. Even worse, you've made up your mind in advance about how you may !vote regarding a future RfA. Therefore, you have admitted to bias from this point onward. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bias: "Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair." I have given you ample reason and plenty of my time discussing why I feel the way I do.  Therefore, I do not feel I've been unfair not am I prejudiced.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt during this discussion.--v/r - TP 19:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the page: What Wikipedia is not, it documents an English Wikipedia policy. It's a policy. I know that. Over 13 months ago I made a simple oversight and mistakenly referred to it a a guideline page rather than a policy page. I've read it many times. To state that a person doesn't understand what's written on the page or doesn't understand its concepts in present tense because they mistakenly referred to the page as a guideline page over 13 months ago is absurd. I have full comprehension of what's on the page. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Addressing my comments under your !vote at RfA would be functional. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In the past, I've sometimes been overly verbose in discussions, although the intention was and is never to talk over others. I've been wording commentary in a more succinct manner for quite some time now, and will continue to do so when functional. Sometimes when discussing detailed topics or subjects, extended discussion can yield significant light. Also, in some instances, people have many significantly differing viewpoints about controversial topics or subjects and don't always reach immediate agreement or consensus. In these instances, sometimes extended discussion actually serves to clarify and better-qualify people's stances, from which point consensus can be determined. That said, your opinion regarding this particular matter is understood, and the compliments regarding my work to improve the encyclopedia are appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have improved but you still use overly technical or complicated words that arn't used in natural speaking. While definitely acceptable, it gives off a bad vibe.--v/r - TP 14:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends upon one's definition and perceptions of what "natural speaking" is, in contrast to what it isn't. Quite subjective. Value judgments such as "bad" are contingent upon one's perceptions and judgments along with their personal values and beliefs, and are also often relative to situational variables. Thus, weasel words such as "bad" are also quite subjective per this context. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. But it's tanked RfAs before so perhaps your subjective opinion isn't matching up with others.--v/r - TP 16:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello TParis. You seem to have a belief that all Wikipedia editors and administrators should have a standardized mentality and writing style, along with an immediate deference to authority, like people in the military are trained to behave. In the world of academia and knowledge, though, this doesn't always fly, and can actually serve to limit the proliferation of knowledge in the free medium of Wikipedia. In the world outside of life in a military career, people are often much more diverse, and people are unlikely to cozy up to your authoritarian style of interaction, because although you are an admin here, you're also just a person. I am beginning to surmise that your communication style may be partially based upon your being a staff sergeant in the U.S. Air Force, because part of the duties of being a sergeant in the military is to have such a stance. Perhaps you should consider the notion of trying to respect people more based upon their positive contributions, rather than consistently searching for things to complain about. I remain open-minded about continued communication with you, because it's in my nature. Perhaps take some time to calm down; the style of your comments indicates hostility at this time. Afterward, feel free to communicate here in a calm, rational and civil manner. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If my behavior didn't read as calm, then you read it in a tone of voice in your head that did not match the tone in mine. As you said, assume good faith.  Being an NCO doesn't have anything to do with what I do on Wikipedia, actually, not even in my behavior.  Besides, I've given you several compliments in the last couple of days; a show of respect for your positive contributions.  Perhaps I'm not the one who needs to calm down.--v/r - TP 19:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the intro section of What Wikipedia is not, an English Wikipedia policy page.


 * "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not."


 * It's a policy page that delineates what Wikipedia is not. Many examples are present there regarding what Wikipedia is not, and the page covers matters regarding style and format, content and community. I have full comprehension of this page's content, purposes and its applications, in entirety. Period. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ouch
As someone who endured the significant stress of a very successful RfA, I can only imagine that "a tad shitty" is a borderline insulting understatement for how you feel about this, especially after having contributed so much to the project. The simple fact of the matter is that strong concerns brought up by widely-respected and/or influential users are very hard to ignore and will tank any RfA. People skimming the comments will certainly be swayed by editors like TP or Worm even being in the oppose section. The good news, though, is that you have a good reputation overall and many editors (including myself) appeared predisposed to support you (we do like you). This moral support will not go away and you should be heartened by it. I seriously hope you will consider giving RfA another go down the road. You essentially get a clean slate after a failed RfA. Your entire editing history is on the table for your first RfA. In a second one, however, only contribs that follow the first RfA are fair game. Just take the next 3-6 months to demonstrate to the community that you understand the concerns raised and have clearly rectified any problems. I really do believe you have potential for adminship in the future, and I'd genuinely like to see that happen. Most importantly, though, please don't be too disheartened by this. Even if you vow never to go near RfA again, you're still a valued editor and should keep doing what you're doing. Best,  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 04:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to provide your perspective. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Productive input
The RfA provided valuable input from Wikipedia's editors and readers. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)