User talk:Northamerica1000/Archive 19

Note
Hi, am wikicology. Thank you for your contributions. Wikipedia appreciates your help. I will find it very unconstructive to template you as regards your recent edit here due to WP:DTR. I suggest that you should always leave your contributions with a summary. Althou it might not be intentional because I'm prety sure that you are very much familiar with the policy. Please kindly take the use of edit summary into consideration. Wikicology (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an edit summary there, of "+". It's an abbreviation I use for "expanding article". Notice how the plus symbol is explained in a later edit summary in the revision history for Ginestrata. For more examples of edit summary abbreviations that Wikipedians use, see Edit summary legend/Quick reference. NorthAmerica1000 09:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that you are right and am familiar with the use of conventions. Perhaps I never sighted in in the first instance. However new editors may not be familiar with that. Cheers.Wikicology (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

relisting
Why relist Articles for deletion/DOS 0? We seem to have a clear consensus, nobody is disputing the deletion. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Joy: the discussion was relisted per procedures stated at WP:RELIST, wherein it states "However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus.".


 * The discussion only has three total participants (including the nomination) and only two !votes, not a very strong input to draw a consensus from. If you want the article deleted, feel free to formalize the matter by adding "delete" in bold to your comment there, as is the procedure at AfD discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments
Hello. Please stop doing this. Thank you. James500 (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:James500: I bolded your part of your !vote at this discussion because it's the standard procedure in AfD discussions. See WP:AFDFORMAT, which explains procedures for contributing to AfD discussions. Bold is used because, per the linked page, "Some bots and tools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words, so following this convention is highly recommended." Also, the AfD logs have been hefty lately, and without the bold, it's possible that your !vote could be missed by a closer. My addition of the bold did not change the content of your !vote other than to add bold to the word "keep". Hope this helps to clarify why the edit was performed. NorthAmerica1000 21:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Bolding !votes is "highly recommended" but not compulsory. Accordingly, I would be grateful if you do not modify my !votes in future. Thank you. James500 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:James500: I'll do my best to remember, and sure, I understand why one wouldn't want anything in their !vote changed whatsoever, not even by simply adding bold to the first word. I notice that you undid the bold in your !vote there. Just out of curiosity, why don't you want to follow the recommended procedures for AfD? I'm not going to change it, but just wondering. At any rate, happy editing. NorthAmerica1000 22:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Consumer electronics - merge or move to talk
Hello! With the TAFI deadline approaching, can you please take a look at the alternative to merging I have proposed here. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 22:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Finnusertop: Thanks for the notification. I need some time to think the matter over further. NorthAmerica1000 23:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for acknowledging. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 23:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-38
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes
 * You can now change the style of links to disambiguation pages. This is done with the  CSS class.
 * There was a problem on right-to-left wikis with Wikidata log entries. The text was messy in watchlists and recent changes. The problem is now fixed. The same problem will be fixed soon for user names.
 * New users are randomly chosen for a test on 12 Wikipedias. They get messages with ideas of articles to edit. The ideas come from what they have already edited.

Problems
 * There was a problem with loading images on September 10.

VisualEditor news
 * If you don't select text when you add a link, the link now shows a number.
 * The citation tool no longer offers to reuse a citation if there are none on the page yet.
 * You can now use help buttons in the "" menu to see what the options are for.

Future software changes
 * The latest version of MediaWiki ( 1.24wmf21 ) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since September 11. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis on September 16, and on all Wikipedias on September 18 (calendar).
 * These changes are coming with the new version:
 * If you use Internet Explorer 7, JavaScript will no longer work. JavaScript tools and scripts will no longer work in that browser. You should update to a newer browser. [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Compatibility#Grade_C]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Mushroom ketchup
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

An article I can't decide if I should AFD or not
This old one right here Becky Love, now she was a finalist in a comp but what comes off as odd is the lack of refs and the fact the page creator has the same name as her. Not sure what to say about this old article. Wgolf (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Wgolf: I always perform several source searches prior to nominating any article for deletion, to check for topic notability. If you're not already aware of it, check out the useful information at WP:BEFORE. NorthAmerica1000 04:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So what is the no footnotes tag for
Sorry don't think I ever really used it that much till today-which I thought you said you could put it for articles like that. So what is no footnotes used for then? Wgolf (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have replied at your talk page. Please respond there. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 23:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

about the unsourced tags I put
Okay didn't realize that those don't go if there was a dead link-though looking at the history of all of those articles they all had the same links and never changed so I was trying to help the articles. Wgolf (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Wgolf: Despite links being dead, they can still possibly be found using webpage archive services, such as the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. NorthAmerica1000 04:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Some of the articles though were stuff like links to something like Yahoo's main page or something like that so I deleted the link all together since those seemed a bit off. (Now ones I am not sure about are ones that link to really old PDF files) Wgolf (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Wgolf: If a supposed reference links directly to Yahoo's main page (without a redirect, etc.), then sure, it's not a viable source. If it's a Yahoo News link that redirects to the Yahoo main page, for example, it's better to tag with a "dead link" template within the reference. As stated above, the content may be available through archive services. The bottom line is that articles that have sources formatted as inline citations should not have the BLP Unsourced template placed on them, even if the links are dead. Additionally, many other templates may be used, such as "unreliable sources", "BLP sources" (for BLP articles needing additional sources), etc., if necessary. NorthAmerica1000 04:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Additionally, articles with listed sources can be tagged with the "No footnotes" template. NorthAmerica1000 04:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry about al that I feel really bad now. Wgolf (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Per my request on your talk page to correct the matter for the articles incorrectly tagged, please just do that. No need to feel bad about honest mistakes whatsoever. NorthAmerica1000 05:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I have put the no foot notes tags on some. I have deleted some links that just went to a main page and put the unsourced (like they just went to a main page of a site instead of the actual story). Wgolf (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (Replied at User talk:Wgolf.) NorthAmerica1000 00:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What should we do about articles who sources (or rather only source) requires a subscription
As is this case with this old article I just found Linda Finnie, which I just put as a one source (which is what it is), but what should we do about links like that, when they say require subscription? I think maybe just keep it until someone gets more or something. Well I don't see anything wrong with the article its just the source is all. Wgolf (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (ping) User:Wgolf: For starters, check out WP:SOURCEACCESS, which states in part, "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." So, yes, definitely keep the source in place. Also, I've added the paywall template to the article's listed source. Regarding what to do with the article, as I stated above, I always perform several source searches prior to nominating any article for deletion, to check for topic notability. NorthAmerica1000 23:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: I have added the following source to the article, and removed the one source template.
 * Rather than tagging everything, consider performing source searches and adding reliable sources to articles to verify content in them, if you're interested in this type of work. This serves to improve the encyclopedia to a much higher degree compared to just adding tags to articles, in my opinion. NorthAmerica1000 23:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than tagging everything, consider performing source searches and adding reliable sources to articles to verify content in them, if you're interested in this type of work. This serves to improve the encyclopedia to a much higher degree compared to just adding tags to articles, in my opinion. NorthAmerica1000 23:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you a person or a bot?
I am just interested because you have that much edits... 😳 -- Ababcdc (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A person! NorthAmerica1000 05:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 16:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm passing on contributing to the discussion there. NorthAmerica1000 05:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Your close on the AfD

 * Firstly, please realize that I am not necessarily contesting the close as no consensus, though, in my biased opinion, the consensus was for something stronger. My question is more driven by simply looking at the criteria for closing. Reading Non-admin_closure, I see that none of the four criteria are satisfied. I had a similar impression of the this close. I agreed with your decision to relist it, but closing it the 2nd time seemed a bit strange to me.
 * I am myself interested in clearing the backlog of various stuff on wikipedia, as I sense your motivation was, so my questions are not just motivated by idle curiosity in this particular case.
 * The nominator had listed a bunch of points for his close: in my opinion, in the hope that something would stick. When you closed it, you made reference to none of those points. What prevents the nominator from simply renominating it with the same justification? Kingsindian (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding Articles for deletion/2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters, first of all, I base my closes upon WP:NACD, which is part of the Wikipedia:Deletion process guideline page, rather than the opinion essay you link above. It's clear that there was no consensus in the discussion, and the nominator's points were sufficiently addressed by participants in the discussion. Sometimes when closing discussions, it isn't always unnecessary to restate all of the points that participants discuss, because it's basically just rewriting all that's already been said. In this particular discussion, much of the commentary was thoroughly detailed, as well as being guideline- and policy-based.


 * Regarding Articles for deletion/2014 Jerusalem tractor attack, it was also clear that there was no consensus in the discussion. It's unclear what you mean above by “but closing it the 2nd time seemed a bit strange to me”. The discussion was only closed once. I relisted the discussion in hopes to obtain more input so that consensus could be determined. After adequate participation occurred, I closed the discussion accordingly. NorthAmerica1000 08:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I often confuse essays with policies. As I said, I am not knowledgeable in this area.
 * When you say that "the nominator's points were sufficiently addressed by participants in the discussion", and then you close the discussion as "no consensus", it is unclear to me what exactly you mean.
 * Consider this. I see the "keep" option there as saying "A keep outcome reflects a rough consensus to retain (i.e. not delete) a page, though not necessarily in its current form." People were concerned about the title or the notability of some of the events, but as far as I can see, they did not give any convincing arguments for deleting the page altogether. As far as I understand, "no consensus" in AfD means something different: that there is doubt between keeping the article and deleting it. Kingsindian (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, both discussions did not reveal a solid consensus for one particular action, hence the no consensus closes. For the most part, in the "2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters" deletion discussion, participants for article deletion and retention provided guideline- and policy-based rationales supporting their stances. While it's your opinion that delete !voters did not provide convincing arguments, which you're naturally entitled to, others interpreted various guidelines and policies differently than you in that discussion, and those views must be taken into consideration. Per this section of the Deletion process guideline page, A no consensus close "reflects the lack of a rough consensus for any one particular action", which was evidentiary in the overall discussion that transpired. NorthAmerica1000 10:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I understand your reasoning a bit better now, though I still disagree with it. My only request is to indicate on the close which arguments you felt were arguable/had consensus and which did not. See for example the detailed justification given here. Otherwise the contentious issues will smoulder below the surface. Kingsindian (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have slightly addended the close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters to reflect my viewpoint about the overall discussion. NorthAmerica1000 10:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I withdrew that AfD...
I noticed you relisted Articles for deletion/Fiend (film) (again). A while after the first relist I wrote that I was withdrawing it (since there had only been two, opposing, votes and I had changed my mind anyway) and removed the AfD template from Fiend (film) and posted that it had undergone a deletion discussion with the result of "withdrawn by nominator (keep)" on the talk page.

So, relisted? Eman 235 / talk 08:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Eman235: An outstanding delete !vote from another user exists in the discussion, so a speedy keep close (see WP:SK) is incorrect to perform. With two remaining !votes in the discussion after your withdrawal, it is a valid discussion for relisting, per WP:RELIST. NorthAmerica1000 08:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have restored the AfD template to the article and removed the AfD notice that you placed on the talk page, per the above. NorthAmerica1000 08:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, policy technicalities, I'm still getting those worked out. Anyway, thanks. :) Eman 235 / talk  08:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's all good, and thanks for understanding. NorthAmerica1000 08:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Solar activity
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

headlines
First of all, all this nonsense is totally unnecessary$\langleʔʌʊ--172.56.22.228 (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)hItalic text\rangle$jhhjjs̬θ̼ʢð∉∴$$y$$ℵ--gف~yيعאמtשњфσΣὍǚ₡₪≥≈←§–Ӱpeace and loveǎǍǍČē ĎĬmèĹĹâʂʃʃt͡sħβd͡ʒd͡ʑt͡ɕ jhj Joseph jr


 * It's entirely unclear what you're referring to here. NorthAmerica1000 04:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Animatronics
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Contested AFD closure
As you saw, I do not agree with your closure of this AFD. This is a contentious case that shouldn't be closed by a non admin. --Tachfin (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, and I understand that you want the article deleted. While my no consensus close was entirely accurate per the discussion therein, we'll see how it goes from this point onward. NorthAmerica1000 11:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * N.b. Closed again by another user as "No consensus tending towards keep thanks to improvement". NorthAmerica1000 13:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Tachfin, you should absolutely not have reopened that discussion by reverting the non-admin closure. Admins can revert non-admin closures. Don't like the result? Take it to WP:DRV. Your revert was reverted by an admin with the same closure result.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well AFAIK, non-admins should stay away from closing contentious AFDs (regardless if their decision was right or not. I myself, in a distant pass, did non-admins closure but only in absolutely non controversial cases; speedy keep, withdrawn nom etc). DRV is when an admin closes a debate. I still think that the current outcome was ill-considered and the current content of the article is crap, but this isn't the place for this debate. --Tachfin (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-39
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes
 * You can test a new Beta Feature called HHVM. It should make editing faster. Please report bugs if you see them.

Problems
 * There was a problem on the English Wikipedia on September 19. It was due to edits on a template used on many pages.
 * Sites were down for users in the Pacific area around 7:00 UTC on September 20. It was due to a problem in the San Francisco data center.
 * There were two bad bugs messing up articles in some browsers in VisualEditor. We fixed the bugs and updated the sites.

Software changes this week
 * The new version of MediaWiki ( 1.24wmf22 ) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since September 18. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis on September 23, and on all Wikipedias on September 25 (calendar).
 * If you have more than 2000 notifications, the oldest ones will be removed.
 * In the "Vector" skin, the icon used for users will show a neutral gender.
 * The VisualEditor template tool now tells you if a required field is missing.
 * The "Cancel" button of the VisualEditor save window is now called "Resume editing". This shows that you can still edit and you won't lose your changes.
 * There are new keyboard shortcuts in VisualEditor. Use Ctrl+Shift+6 for  and Ctrl+Shift+5 for strikethrough.
 * In VisualEditor, you can now see that you are switching to the source editing mode. Before, it was not clear it was happening.

Future site changes
 * You can see a plan for the move to Phabricator. It's the new tool to track bugs. A guided tour will be done via video on September 24.  

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lettuce soup
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The soup
The bread soup has probably originates from the Roman Empire, soldiers were eating something similar. Hafspajen (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Hafspajen: I've recently created several soup articles, so clarification to which article you're referring to would be appreciated. NorthAmerica1000 11:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Acquacotta. Hafspajen (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (ping) User:Hafspajen: If you could do so, provision here of a source backing up this notion would be appreciated. NorthAmerica1000 11:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I thínk it was in a book in the Ancient Roman cuisine somewhere... But I tried to find it but don't know where it was. Could have been some library book I borrowed once...? Hafspajen (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Food and dining in the Roman Empire -a kind of a Pottage. Hafspajen (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (ping) User:Hafspajen: At the article you linked above, the section has content about grain pottage, but aquacotta historically wasn't and in contemporary times isn't prepared with grain. There's also content about "Julian stew", which was consumed by Roman soldiers, but that soup differs from acquacotta, such as being prepared with ground meat, wine and fennel, which acquacotta lacks. Without a reliable source to back up the assertion, I hesitate to add information about the Roman Empire to the acquacotta article. NorthAmerica1000 04:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WEll, it was probably original res from my side, then. Hafspajen (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't find book, maybe this?  The history of acquacotta go back to the dawn of human habitation in the area, for in fact, the Italic tribes used to offer their gods seasonal vegetables in the form of  what we might term an “archaic acquacotta”. Today’s version is a dish with many seasonal variations, prepared with cultivated or wild greens, to which are added pork lard with garlic and marjoram. Hafspajen (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

'' It was used to make bread and porridge, the staples of the Roman diet. Poor people subsisted on a gruel-like soup of mush made from grain.'' Hafspajen (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All they could afford was soup and bread and porridge sometimes. ....

I don't know...
 * http://www.latolfa.com/tolfa2000-7/english/inpagine/infolklore/cuisine.html - Getting closer, and an interesting read, but it's not a reliable source, and it's possible that the author is incorrect. If the author is correct, it's possible that the dish may have been "migrated" from southern Tuscany to Rome, which is in Lazio, south of Tuscany (the two regions border one-another)
 * http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub369/item2071.html - not a reliable source, and only mentions mush soup made with grain and soup made in giant vats.
 * http://www.answers.com/Q/What_food_did_the_poor_ancient_Romans_eat - not a reliable source, and just states that poor Romans ate soup and bread, and sometimes porridge. It doesn't fit into the history of the soup as backed by reliable sources in the article, specifically acquacotta's invention as a means to make very stale bread edible. NorthAmerica1000 12:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will need to start some more serious res about it, I think it was a book about food in ancient Rom, but I have to retrace my steps, somehow. Will take some time - and I am not sure I will succed... If I manage, I let you know. Hafspajen (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi.
Hello I saw you editing and decided to say hi :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Good userz (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of soups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bisque. 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) 09:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. NorthAmerica1000 09:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Maccu
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Cream of asparagus soup
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow.
I was looking through your page and contributions and whoa! I'm a huge fan, just saying thanks also for leaving that help thing on my page. Hopefully one day I can be one tenth as awesome as you! Vlolv (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Vlolv: thanks for the kind words, and welcome to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 13:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

References for list articles
I have searched for a guideline or policy on whether a list article needs to have references, but I have not been successful in that search. In past years, when I have started a list article, no one expressed a need for references. However, more recently, some list articles that I have started have received tags indicating a need for references. (Please see "List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers" and "List of climate change books".) Because most list articles in Wikipedia seem to be without references, references seem to be unnecessary, but I am hesitant to remove the tags without mentioning a guideline or policy to support the removal. I have noticed that you have started many list articles, so you seem to be especially qualified to answer my question: Where does Wikipedia have a guideline or policy about whether a list article requires references? (I am adding your talk page to my watchlist.) —Wavelength (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. An article may be ported to another site or printed and must stand on their own. --  Gadget850talk 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Wavelength: In addition to the above MOS link, below are more links to peruse.
 * Regarding List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers, check out: WP:NLIST, WP:BLPCAT and BLP: Where BLP does and does not apply. Sourcing content within the "Theme(s)" column of the table would be an improvement.
 * Regarding List of climate change books, check out: WP:LISTN. Soucring content within the "Theme(s) and subtheme(s)" column of the table would be an improvement.
 * Also see WP:MINREF, "When you must use inline citations". Hope this helps you out. NorthAmerica1000 14:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Gadget850 and NorthAmerica. I have been pondering your replies and the guidelines to which you have linked.  (I would have thought that the reader could visit the article for each of the listed entries to find supporting references, and that this would be also possible on mirror sites.)
 * "List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers" (in its present version) has 89 writers listed. "List of climate change books" (in its present version) has 54 books listed.
 * If I am going to copy one or more references from each article to the corresponding list article, I would need to decide which reference(s) to choose, and then the list article would have a large number of references. I am still not well skilled in using the wikicode for references, although I can easily add external links within the tabulated lists.  (The first column seems to me to be the most appropriate column for adding the references.)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC) and 19:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Strolghino
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=627376747 your edit] to List of hot beverages may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * * Smoking Bishop – a type of mulled wine punch or wassail that was especially popular in Victorian England at
 * ✅. NorthAmerica1000 08:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Help
Hey i was the person that left that comment that you said thanks for the kind words, anyway i took the advice and help from that document template you left on my page. I think i got it right but can you check and review my first article that i'm working on. I trust you if it really is not worth it you can tell me and i'll try another article. I'm just trying to figure this thing out and contribute! Here's my discussion link for my page. [|discussion page] and here is the page itself X3SR. If you can help thanks if you are busy and can't I truthfully understand. I just had no where to turn to i apologize if this is an intrusion on your time. Thanks either way!

Warm Regards, Vlolv (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Vlolv: Regarding the X3SR article, since it was nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion (AfD), the future of the article will be decided there. That said, the nomination is based upon a perception from the nominator of the band not meeting various criteria at Criteria for musicians and ensembles and not meeting standards of topic notability on Wikipedia, per the part of the nomination that states, "No coverage found in reliable independent sources."


 * Try to address the concerns of the nominator at the AfD discussion. The article would benefit from the addition of independent, third-party reliable sources that provides significant coverage about the topic to qualify its notability, which are also used to verify information in articles. Also note that the criteria at Criteria for musicians and ensembles can also be used to demonstrate topic notability if the band qualifies under any of them.


 * Even if the article is deleted, don't be discouraged about contributing to Wikipedia. AfD is part of the checks and balances on Wikipedia, and it's commendable that you would like to contribute toward its improvement. NorthAmerica1000 09:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/3PB
Strictly speaking, as far as I can see, this AfD should have been closed as "keep Paper Buildings" because that article is the one that was actually nominated for deletion. It wasn't redirected during the course of the AfD, it was moved and rewritten. James500 (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:James500: Thanks for the input. I agree, and have revised the close at Articles for deletion/3PB, along with templates associated with this matter on all pertinent pages. NorthAmerica1000 13:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you merge 2 Spi reports for me?
Okay starting here: Sockpuppet investigations/Mjnichols, then there seems to be one though that seems to be connected to that user though as he did the same pages Sockpuppet investigations/HaroldSalasI/Archive. So yeah it just got confusing and I need someone to merge these, thanks! Wgolf (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Wgolf: I'm going to pass on performing the merge. Fistly, I'm not an administrator, and there has been significant checkuser and administrator input at Sockpuppet investigations/HaroldSalasI/Archive. I recommend contacting User:Risker and User:Callanecc for guidance regarding this matter, both of whom have contributed to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaroldSalasI/Archive discussion. NorthAmerica1000 03:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been addressed by, whose attention to this is appreciated. Risker (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-40
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes
 * On Commons, you can now see what files are most used across all wikis. You can also see the same list for deleted or uncreated files.
 * There are now many more translations for language names.

Software changes this week
 * The new version of MediaWiki ( 1.25wmf1 ) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since September 25. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis on September 30, and on all Wikipedias on October 2 (calendar).
 * Errors from Scribunto (Lua) are now shown on the page. Before, you had to click on "Script error" to see them.
 * You can add an "autovalue" for a field in TemplateData. When users add the template to a page, the value will be added automatically. An example is when a clean-up template shows the date it was added.
 * If you change a user preference but don't save it, it now asks if you want to save it.
 * The PDF export tool has changed. The new one has better language support but it doesn't offer ZIM and EPUB formats.

Future changes
 * You can watch a video showing Phabricator, the new tool to track bugs. You can also read more about the move from Bugzilla.
 * JavaScript authors: Many old methods will be removed soon. Please check your scripts and gadgets and replace the old methods by the new ones if needed.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Help me create a Request for Comment asking that Jimmy Wales step down
I want to create a request for comment with some long term members of the Article Rescue Squadron.

This request for comment would argue that the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down.

Please e-mail me if you are interested. Walterruss (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No thanks, and I'm not a member of that WikiProject (resigned in November 2012). NorthAmerica1000 11:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Cream of broccoli soup
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)