User talk:Northamerica1000/Archive 61

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyäni
If you do not mind me asking, what is the reason that you relisted Articles for deletion/Kyäni? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Per arguments thus far in the discussion, consensus is leaning toward deletion at this point, but you have provided a guideline-based rationale for retention, and another user has opined that they're unsure. Also, the discussion has not realized a great deal of input. See WP:RELIST for more information about relisting. North America1000 20:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Miss World
When merging we have too account for WP:undue. I feel a full list of winners of preliminary events in the overview article falls outside this. If you wanted to keep this information then I would recommend adding it to the individual competition articles (it is not in the Miss World 2015 one for example). Anyway I am not fussed about these articles (I don't watch them and only know of the reverts through the article alerts) and the top tier article is not that great to start with. I did just want to defend myself on one though. Here you say nothing was merged, but I did merge in the name with this edit. I just tidied the paragraph as I was basically merging a lot of similar titles. If you take out the list there was nothing else that needed merging. I do make lots of merges that are simply redirects, but if I do I always try and explain why in my edit summary (eg ). AIR corn (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I'm in the process of adding reliable sources to properly verify content in the tables. This takes time. These are actually significant aspects of the competitions, so I disagree with the notion of their being undue. Reliable sources consistently cover this aspect of the competition. North America1000 05:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Robbie Brady
Please protect Robbie Brady. 2602:306:3357:BA0:745A:6477:A2BC:A7BF (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please post page protection requests at Requests for page protection, rather than here. Thank you. North America1000 23:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Bengay - Thank you
Thank you for your improvements/expansion of the Bengay article. The brand was a household name back in the day. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's actually some interesting history about the topic, but it takes time to expand articles. I just added an infobox... North America1000 19:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Total deletion of an article
Hello Northamerica1000.

I created an article titled "Sober On Tuxedos (band)" which was deleted. Can you please remove it completely from wikipedia history because it appears on facebook?

Thank you in advance.

Mad00lini (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You can request suppression, which is a form of enhanced deletion that expunges information from any form of usual access, even by administrators. For more information, and to make a suppression request, see Oversight. North America1000 08:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I Could Use Your Help Please
Hi Northamerica1000! I've become familiar with Jon Luvelli and his works. This past week I've been spending a lot of time speaking on his AFD discussion. There is no doubt that he is none throughout his industry for what he does. He has even had additional media coverage this week. I would like to ask you if we could turn his page into a WP:STUB so not only myself but others can further expand this article. I will continue to stay updated on this topic as I do several other pages pertaining to the art industry, and make edits as they're appropriate.

Thank you! MarPatton (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi The qualifications for an article about a person on English Wikipedia comes down to whether or not the subject meets notability guidelines such as WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. There are also secondary notability guidelines that pertain to various people. For this subject, WP:CREATIVE can also be consulted, per their background as a photographer. More information about biographies of living persons on Wikipedia is available at WP:BLP.


 * The article may be deleted if consensus at the discussion forms for this action. Nevertheless, don't be discouraged if this occurs, and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. North America1000 14:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 9
Newsletter • May / June 2016

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-27
 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 changes
 * A daily email summary of notifications could be sent even when there were no notifications from the wiki. Now no email will be sent if there is no activity.

Changes this week
 * The "" button in the visual editor's toolbar will move into the "" menu except for Wikipedias, Wikibookses and Wikiversities. This is to make it less prominent on wikis that don't use it as much.
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 July. It will be on all wikis from 7 July (calendar).

Meetings
 * You can take part in the next office hour for Wikidata on IRC on July 8 at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  19:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Grazie for the brew. Cheers, North America1000 12:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :), Happy editing, – Davey 2010 Talk 15:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you're welcome (diff). Cheerioooooooo, North America1000 03:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

4th of July

 * I'll be checking out fireworks on TV tonight, but I may go to a bar later to chill with some locals. Hope you've been doing well, and happy 4th of July. North America1000 02:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

BSDMS
I deleted a paragraph likely written by an Internet troll regarding how BSDMS became undank while the citation did not corroborate the claim. Might be good to return the page to protected status?-- ☭ 🎆 🌎 🎼 🎺 🐦 02:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really seeing a reason to protect Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash; it's rather stable and there hasn't really been that much editing going on with it. Protection is typically used to prevent continuous problematic edits from occurring after they have occurred, rather than preventing them from occurring before they occur. North America1000 05:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sputnik Monroe
Thanks for getting the dab page issue resolved. I was about to do that and saw that you're already on top of it! GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No problemo. Cheers, North America1000 23:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Hard soda
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
I've noticed you at Afds and have noticed how you keep helping editors with nudges and hints about the right arguments to follow apart from providing links to the right articles to read. Your edit of my references at Articles for deletion/Mary Lincoln Beckwith was also appreciated by me. Thanks for all that... Lourdes 14:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I remember that now. The header2 in the discussion was truncating the indentation of the table of contents on the main AfD log page, because AfD listings are posted with a header3. So, I changed it to header4. Cheers, North America1000 20:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Icebar Orlando
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Theatre for a New Audience
I'd like to get your thoughts on this article since you worked on it in the past. We've been discussed with the subject themselves (2015100610022918) about their article. It was deleted for text copyvio from multiple sources (including their own website, which they're willing to license per CC-BY-SA-3.0). I've been scouring previous revisions of the article to try to gauge if we could restore a previous copyvio-free version but I'm having a slightly hard time determining what revision would be best. I'm eyeing this one of your just before a 5k bytes enlargment but later, better revisions might also be workable with some trimming I suppose? I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter. Thanks for the assistance. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just viewed the discussion at Copyright problems/2015 September 30. I am working on entirely other matters at this time, and I don't really feel like becoming involved in all of this at this time, making all of the comparisons that are necessary with the various urls provided in the discussion, etc., which can take significant time. Sorry, North America1000 23:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

A revert without due cause
was an unfounded revert. Trademark registration is not the same as copyright status - the two are entirely separate rights and issues. I've been dealing with copyright images for a very long time and this is clearly a PD-textlogo image per US law. You, and I should have remembered to do it, can add the trademark template to the freely licensed image which clearly states: These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. Please reinstate my edits. ww2censor (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. You appear to be correct. Sorry, but I was erring on the side of caution, thinking that this could have qualified as copyright infringement. After reading content at various places, such as here and at Commons:Non-copyright restrictions § Trademark law, your edit appears to be in order. Sorry for any hassle this may have created for you. North America1000 10:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * N.b. I also added the Trademark template to the page. North America1000 11:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

List of street foods
Hello! Hey, what do you think about the idea of table-izing the List of street foods article, using a format similar to that of List of regional dishes of the United States? So the table columns would be image, name, associated region, and description. (I would vote for having one long table, instead of breaking it into multiple tables by type of food.)   — Mudwater (Talk) 00:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, as per the example below (same format as List of regional dishes of the United States). I think it looks fly with the image first. One long list if fine by me. Hey, I have a wiki-friend who may be able to easily convert the content into table format, per a technique she has that does not require laboriously going through every entry manually, so pinging here to see if she has time to pitch in. North America1000 01:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll do it right now. I have a bit of time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks. Instant response. Pinging to let them know, so they don't do the long-form work. Anna's tablefication is supreme! North America1000 01:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! — Mudwater (Talk) 01:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Here you go: Talk:Regional street food Talk:List of street foods. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed link above, per request here. North America1000 02:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of street foods This is gonna be great. Here's my attempt at starting the table manually, using the first three entries in the current list, with some added images and descriptions:

— Mudwater (Talk) 01:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Anna Frodesiak has put a revised table on the article talk page, with the images in column one. So, that's great. But I can't figure out how to comment further in that talk page section, or to get to the new version of the table. I'm confused, and also going to bed. Could you please work with her to get the updated table into the article, with the images in the first column? Thanks! "P.S." After that it might be best to delete the two collapsed tables from the talk page, for technical reasons. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * N.b. Being discussed at Talk:List of street foods. North America1000 02:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I must say, things are going very well with the article. Thanks for all your work on this. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

When do you think footnotes should be added to the Name column, and when to the Description column? I was thinking that always putting them in the Description column would be best, but I see you've added some to the Name column recently. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's my take. When sources are used verifying that a food is a street food, and when this is not mentioned in the description section, I think the citation should be in the name column. If sources about a dish verifying its "street cred" are moved to the description section, with no mention of such street cred there, people could add a Failed verification template, which creates a "[not in citation given]" message, because sources verifying street cred may not actually describe the dish much. However, if a source has both descriptive and street cred information, then it can go in the description section. North America1000 04:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. In my opinion it would be more straightforward just to put all the refs in the Description column.  On the other hand, we could try using both columns as you suggest and see how that goes.  (Although I think I probably moved some from Name to Description a few days ago.) — Mudwater (Talk) 06:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I could be being "overly-accurate" in my opinion above; sources only in the description section is likely fine, and more sources can always be added. It's probably all good. North America1000 07:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-28
 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 changes
 * A new image scaler fixed a number of bugs for showing SVG files. Some new problems turned up.
 * Notifications are grouped by types. They are now counted by number of notifications and not by unread groups. That change may increase the number of notifications displayed. The earlier way of counting was often incorrect. Unread notifications will also be displayed first.
 * Special:Notifications now has a maximum width for the notifications list on desktop computers. This allows long titles and descriptions to be cut properly. Notifications are now also better parsed.

Problems
 * On 5 July Wikimedia Commons had problems and could not be edited for 20 minutes. For a short while after that the recent changes log and some gadgets were not working properly. It affected administrative actions on other projects too.
 * Users who have multiple unread notifications can mark them as read by visiting Special:Notifications page on their wiki.

Changes this week
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 July. It will be on all wikis from 14 July (calendar).

Meetings
 * Octicons-sync.svg You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 12 July at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  15:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cheese soup
Hello! Your submission of Cheese soup at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muse (headband), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brain wave. 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) 10:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (de-linked). North America1000 10:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

mongoose webserver vs mongoose javascript library
hi User:Northamerica1000, i really love persons expanding articles. but i would really appreciate that the expansion remotely meets the topic of the article. the Mongoose (web server) has nothing to do with a javascript library called mongoose. putting a book about a javascript library in there is highly confusing. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You stripped some valid sources from the article (e.g. diff) after !voting to delete the article at AfD. Removing sources from an article that serve to demonstrate notability while also !voting to delete is rather poor form, and could be interpreted as a biased editing decision to better qualify your !vote at AfD. I restored this source to the article, using it as an inline citation to verify content. North America1000 03:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Filinvest Development Corporation logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Filinvest Development Corporation logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-29
 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 changes
 * Due to the rollback, new sorting of Notifications on the Fly-Out Menus has been deployed with a delay.
 * Octicons-tools.svg Due to the rollback, the daily special patch deployment process has been changed.
 * In notifications, "Messages" are now called "".

Problems
 * On July 12 all wikis were rolled back to MediaWiki 1.28.0-wmf.8 due to a problem in the log-in system.

Changes this week
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 July. It will be on all wikis from 21 July (calendar).
 * Special:Log now has a help link.
 * The RevisionSlider can be tested on the beta cluster. From 22 July, it will be available as a beta feature at:, ,

Meetings
 * Octicons-sync.svg You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 19 July at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
 * Octicons-tools.svg You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topic this week is "Devise plan for a cross-wiki watchlist back-end". The meeting will be on 20 July at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes
 * User scripts and bots can no longer use http:// to edit wiki pages.
 * Octicons-tools.svg Gerrit is going to be updated. Developers are invited to test it.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  12:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

About List of Rullers of the Philippines

 * I just Need help to review the Deletion tag by User:Riohondo on the List of Rullers of the Philippines since it was tagged on deletion list since 6th of July, but since you reviewed the article  how can i add supplemental references to avoid deletion of an article?


 * good day! thank you. (&#123; ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔&#124; ໑ &#125; P.A.-II (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC))
 * Hi : I haven't reviewed or contributed to the List of rulers of the Philippines article (Revision history) or its talk page (Revision history) at all. Perhaps you are confusing me with another user? In terms of sources, try links from these searches below. You can cite any sources you find within the AfD discussion itself. North America1000 07:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well thank you very much i hope this help, good day! (&#123; ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔&#124; ໑ &#125; P.A.-II (talk))

Afd
Hi, expect youve noticed that today and yesterday SwisterTister is swamping AFDs. He seems to be taking them straight off the new page feed and afding them within a few seconds and claiming to have done extensive searches, some are bad articles but others are not.You can see his contribs how fast he's nominating. Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Before I provide any response, I'm pinging here to address your concerns if they would like to. Seems only fair. North America1000 06:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly I'm only commenting here because I'm being asked to since I attempt my best to stay away; FWIW, I am nominating articles that are exactly deletion material and are not convincing of any applicable notability at all. May I note that I should not be scrutinzed simply for being a deletionist.... WP:AGF would apply here also.... SwisterTwister   talk  07:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:SwisterTwister The problem is your claiming to have done extensive searches which is impossible in the time from one page to the next straight off the new page feed and that gives the impression to other !voters that an extensive search has been done and they do not need to do one themselves which can result in very unfair deletions . I noticed this when pages i'd marked as reviewed were quickly Afd.Atlantic306 (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You may want to ping the user here; it's unlikely they have this page watchlisted, so they may not see your reply. North America1000 07:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Ousterhout AfD
Were you surprised as well that that got called as no consensus? I notice you stayed out of the debate but still tagged a couple of the !votes. It obviously makes no real difference since keep is the default outcome when there's no consensus, but still, I thought this was a poor call. Secondary sources citing primary sources is not a reason to delete and the promotional complaints were before the article got revised. When the WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG exist, you're supposed to keep, no matter what the vote count. When I looked, I realized the admin who closed it doesn't have that much experience. Msnicki (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * inre the AfD discussion, you can always discuss the closure with the closing admin to present them with your take on the matter. North America1000 02:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I, on the other hand, thing the close was probably in error: it should have been delete, because the references were unreliable and anecdotal-- Allure to show notability of a surgeon? But rather than appealing -- ot renominating as can be done almost immediately after a no-consensus close,  I'm just fixing the article as best I can. . eight years of experience at Deletion Review  (which somewhat to my amazement actually adds up  to over a thousand reviews I've watched or commented in) has me firmly convinced that regardless of what one thinks should have happened, it is almost never worthwhile to appeal a no-consensus close.   DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't see any point to DRV'ing a no consensus close, either. It's also not usually worth discussing with the closing admin unless you're intending to DRV them.  No one ever changes their close just because you ask; they usually just double down.  Also, "fixing the article" does not mean deleting it sentence-by-sentence because you weren't able to delete it all at once.  Msnicki (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I've changed closes. Admins vary. The point of discussing it is that you will perhaps be satisfied by the explanation--abouth alf the time, people are. Of course, not all admins do give detailed explanations on request as they ought to.
 * Since you reverted my changes on Ousterhout, I assume the your last sentence refers to that; we can discuss why on the talk p. sentence by sentence .  My reaction is not trying to remove it sentence by sentence, though I know some people have done that at times; I meant what I said-- that since we're keeping it, I'm trying to improve it by  removing the weak points, as for any article.  DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll think about approaching her. If you're sincere about improving an article, one of the best ways is to look for sources.  In fact, it's something you're supposed to do in good faith at every AfD, since the sources merely need to exist, not actually be cited to establish notability.  I try to do that even when I hate the subject and I think you'll notice I change my !votes pretty routinely when others discover sources, again, even if I personally hate the article.  I think you could have done better this time.
 * The sources establish that he invented facial feminization surgery (FFS) but I'm not convinced you appreciate the significance of that, so that may be a reason you're skeptical of the whole article as promotional. The significance is that he was literally the first surgeon to figure out how to change a male face into a female face, all of it without visible scars.  (All of the jaw work was done via incisions inside the mouth.)  Before that, there was simply no one who knew how to do this and trans people got nose jobs and cheek implants that did not fool anyone.  To make an analogy, to the trans community, this is like the first guy to figure out how to do a heart transplant or make a working light bulb.  It meant you actually could change the gender people saw you as, without any makeup.  What wasn't possible became possible.
 * Naturally, we don't cite any of this in a BLP, but here is one of the earliest personal accounts, from 18 years ago, several years before the term FFS had been invented, that might help you understand how revolutionary and how significant this was at the time. Nicole (today an EE lecturer ) suggested the lip shortening, which Ousterhout then began doing on all his later patients.     Msnicki (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Iam very much aware of the importance. The technique should be discussed in detail, at the page on it. What you are saying is not that he invented it, but that he greatly improved it. There's a difference.  If people had been doing it   before, but less successfully, he didn't invent the idea. Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to expand the article, using good sources, primarily medical reviews that meet WP:RSMed. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That is absolutely positively NOT what I said! I thought I was so clear about that that I am absolutely stunned by your claim.  I said he invented facial feminization because that is what he did.  Before Ousterhout, there was no such thing as facial feminization.  It was not merely that we did not have a name for it or that it wasn't very good and that he improved it.  It simply did not exist.
 * When all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. Most plastic surgeons trans people might have approached before Ousterhout would have been cosmetic surgeons who did only soft tissue work, as described at Plastic surgery.  They no idea how to feminize a face.  If they had, they'd have realized they weren't prepared to do the serious bony work required to change a male skull into female skull.  So they did what they knew how to do, nose jobs and cheek implants, which didn't fool anyone.  What Ousterhout did was realize that the bony structure of the face had to change, especially the jaw, the brow bossing and the forehead, which other surgeons simply never touched.  He figured out how they would have to change and he figured out how to do it.  The jaw was especially problematic because most plastic surgeons are not dentists or oral surgeons and they don't know how to work on the jaw without risking serious nerve damage.  Ousterhout could do this because he is also a dentist.
 * This is his invention based on his research. So far as I know, the lip shortening is the only procedure in the mix that was not entirely Ousterhout's idea.  And even that, while suggested by a patient, was his idea how to do it.  (Other plastic surgeons had sometimes tried to lift or give greater fullness to the upper lip with an incision at the lip line, rolling the lip up, leaving an often extremely visible scar and an odd-looking lip.)  Every surgeon who now does FFS (and there are only 12) has copied what Ousterhout invented as a basic set of procedures.  This is why some reasonable discussion of what he has invented belongs in the article about him.  It would be like having an article on Thomas Edison that doesn't discuss how he invented the light bulb.  Msnicki (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * when I wrote that's what you said, I meant that's what the fact you provided would indicate to me, but then I am a little skeptical in all fields about claims to having invented something . You give two examples of his innovations, first to perform a particular lip procedure, which may be important but hardly fundamental, and claim to extensively modify the bony structure, which would seem much more important.  If you are right, and the difference from each of them is so dramatic as to be recognized by plastic surgeons in general, it needs explicit  MEDRS compliant sources for it. The first step will be some quotes from the two you do have that will demonstrate what you say.  If you could possibly find one that's open access, that would be even better.


 * I just note that for the examples you cite, based on our WP article, there are three people who could be considered responsible for the development and realization of heart transplants, & at least 4 for the incandescent light bulb (In the US, Edison had by far the best publicity, but in the UK, Swan was generally recognized).  And please don't assume I come here from a posture of ignorance. It's true I didn't realize Osterhaut had a major role, but I did know about the surgery, I've worked here a little on related articles, & I've read a few of the memoirs. (&, incidentally, I wonder who's considered the leader/developedr in various European coutnries--this is often different)  DGG ( talk ) 10:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not sure you do understand. I am not asserting he invented the individual procedures.  I am saying he invented the combination of techniques and how he applied them, creating something that did not exist before.  He studied 1500 skulls to figure out what was different between male and female skulls and then he figured out how to change the parts that were different, using the skills and knowledge he had developed working on severely deformed patients.  To shorten the chin, for example, he used a sliding genioplasty.  No one claims he invented that procedure.  But before Ousterhout, no one had thought of using a sliding genioplasty for facial feminization.  Similarly, surgeons had long been using burrs and methylmethacrylate to reshape bones.  But before Ousterhout, no one had thought of grinding down the bony brow bossing and then rounding out the forehead with methymethacrylate to change a male forehead into a female forehead.
 * Andrea James and Nicole were the first transwomen to post before and after pictures in September 1998 and January 1999, respectively.  As is often the case, knowing it can be done is often key to doing it and pretty quickly, Frans Noorman van der Dussen and Suporn Watanyusakul also began doing FFS, using pretty much the same combination of procedures Ousterhout had developed.  But Ousterhout was the first.  Msnicki (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Need help-Advice
need help for an advice idunno how to explain this properly too much trouble... But its kinda... My images which in the Philippines article had been reverted all time by this User:Riohondo now with the help of the User:Obsidian Soul to delete my contributions here and they using the WP:OR wiki or is not violated since it was a free source, (also they stated that my work is Propaganda) although its not since propaganda has not a source, and my image was made up, But it had a source based on the refecences/citations on the articles itself..

Plus their accusations of propaganda was in the history of my old account User:Philipandrew, in that time arround 2014, i dont know yet multi accounts are prohibited in wiki, So i been ground but i think its not the reason to use it in this new account i made i making alot of Contributions here so far, But some deletionist tried to Use it as a weapon against me.

since the references i made idon't know how to fight them in legal way) since im not really famillar to other policies Except on the copyrights, But if you give me hand for just advice it will be a big help. Thanks  if you can give me a link for where should i send my complain thanks (&#123; ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔&#124; ໑ &#125; P.A.-II  (talk))
 * My impression is that I don't want to become involved in all of this. I am working on other stuff. I recommend discussing matters on the article talk page with users who disagree with your edits. North America1000 14:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ham and eggs
Gatoclass (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Komal Jha
I believe I have taken your word of caution in adding this post by appending it at the end with - Edit Source !

Thank you for all the contributions ! This discussion thread is closed stating 'Keep' as a decision.

'''(cur | prev) 22:07, 24 June 2016‎ JohnCD (talk | contribs)‎. . (23,301 bytes) (+2,047)‎. . (→‎Draft:Komal Jha: Closing debate; result was keep (using User:Doug/closemfd.js)) (undo | thank)'''

Now, as User:SmokeyJoe mentioned in the same thread, is it appropriate to move it to main article space? Please guide.

Also, about a new article on a different subject, which I want to contribute, should I have to go through the review mechanism or can I publish directly?

Thanks ! Ch.th (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello : Yes, the MfD discussion was closed with a keep result, but I have to leave this matter to, the administrator who performed the most recent deletion of the article and also most recently fully protected the page from recreation (see the log page for the article). There are two reasons I cannot unilaterally publish the article: 1) this could potentially be perceived as wheel warring, per the history of the page, and 2) I am involved because I have made contributions to the draft. So, after posting this, I will notify DGG about this discussion and we'll await their response here. North America1000 03:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll look tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for all the support and guidance. I shall look forward to it. Also, please let me know as I asked earlier, should I go through AfC reviews for my new articles too or can I directly create and publish them? Thanks ! Ch.th (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hope will pull out some time from his busy schedule to look in to Draft:Komal Jha and publish/guide as discussed earlier. In the meantime, can I create the other article directly and publish, without AfC review? This is a new article and the subject is on this : Ravi Mooruru. Thannks ! --Ch.th (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I notified on their talk page about your comment here inre Draft:Komal Jha. Regarding Ravi Mooruru, yes, you can publish an article directly. Just be sure that the subject passes notability guidelines such as WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, that the article has a credible claim of significance regarding the subject, to prevent it from being tagged for WP:A7 speedy deletion, and use reliable sources that demonstrate the subject's notability and properly verify content. For more general information about publishing articles, check out WP:42. North America1000 07:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the continued support. I will make note of the points that you have mentioned above, also I would cull out the references from either renown news papers or renown TV channels only. By now, I believe I have experience the significance of the sources and consequences. Should I need anything, shall disturb you. Thanks ! --Ch.th (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging : Hi DGG, could you please take a look at the draft and consider matters. On 5 July 2016 you stated that you'd "... look tomorrow", but it's been ten days, and has requested several times whether or not this can be moved to main namespace. This is just a reminder, not meant to be a "hassle" or anything like that. North America1000 13:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I re-read the material. I do not think it will hold up at AfD without substanatial modification, and perhaps not even with it, because the roles are mostly minor, as they were at the previous AfDs. . The sort of Indian articles used for documentation are straightforward press releases, and I am informed they are normally paid for. I am therefore not going to  move what I still consider a grossly promotional article to mainspace, any more than I would write one.  I will however not object if you or any other admin should do it. I should perhaps have explained earlier that  I have said for many years that any admin who disagrees with me can reverse any action of mine without asking permission,   I only ask to be told about it.  In fact, I think our present rule discouraging this may promote harmony, but it also promotes Ownership.  DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thank you for the opinion and to a certain extent I agree that some of the trivial so called news portals are paid, but not necessarily it holds good for mainstream media. However, I have clarified many times during discussions that I have picked up the news sources from mainstream media of India namely, Times of India, Deccan Chronicles, DNA to example a few. These newspapers have few-ten millions of daily subscriptions. Also, as I have researched, their respective regional circulations (Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Tamilnadu, Mumbai editions - which sums up to more than 75 million daily subscriptions) have also noted this artiste. Also, there are some news channels on Television namely - Sahara Samay-Mumbai, TV9 Telugu and Kannada have broadcasted interviews of this artiste notable number of times. There is least possibility that these news sources are paid. Hence, I request you to allow to move to article space and believe me, there are more to update in the article which I know of eventually. With all your guidance I am open to do in coming days and I look forward that you will encourage me to contribute to other articles to bring some emerging artistes and regional popularity to the light and let the world have a knowledge on what is new at this part of the world. If at all any nominations happen in future for AfD, I shall be able to debate with sufficient evidences. Hope I am making sense.--Ch.th (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks !


 * : I have performed several copy edits to remove promotional tone from the draft, perform punctuation and grammar corrections, content organization, etc. I recommend for you to continue to copy edit the draft so that it reads entirely neutrally, just stating facts and the subject's noteworthiness in an objective manner. Pinging to notify him about this new message here. North America1000 15:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello ! Thanks for the edits. I remember during the MfD discussions, it was stated by someone that it doesn't any longer look promotional and hence I thought it is good to go. Well, there is no problem in taking a look again in correlation with tone. Thanks ! --Ch.th (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * to repeat: any admin who cares to may move it to article space, but I personally am not going to. I think it has than than an even chance of surviving AfD, and that's the minimum standard. If NorthAmerica thinks it has a better chance, he is welcome to move it. I'm not personally planning to list it for AfD if he does, but if someone else does, I may join the discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have published the article to main namespace, at Komal Jha. North America1000 18:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a tonne for getting my first article published ! This is really very encouraging for me to contribute more and more towards the community. Thanks for all the efforts, support and guidance provided all this while ! I appreciate it ! Thanks again !! Looking forward to long lasting association. Thanks !--Ch.th (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Help Me
Can i move my draft to to main space with the same name which i used to store it?. --Markzy90 (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to the article and draft you are asking about. North America1000 22:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * from the user contributions, it appears to be Draft:Shabi Adeniyi Oluwaseun.  DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi : Draft articles are typically moved to main (article) namespace using the same name for the subject that exists in draft namespace, as long as the name in draft namespace is correct and accurate. : From the user's contributions, Markzy90 could also be referring to Draft:Kayode Opeyemi. I'll just wait for a response from Markzy90 at this point if they have any additional questions. North America1000 03:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Myanmar constitutional referendum, 2015
Hello. Could you possibly reclose this as "delete"? There was zero opposition to deletion, so I cannot understand how it can be closed as no consensus. For example, when RMs are unopposed, they are closed in favour of the move. Thanks, Number   5  7  11:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi The discussion was closed as no consensus as per WP:NOQUORUM, because the discussion received no comments from any editor other than your nomination. Requested moves differ considerably compared to deletion discussions, the latter of which removes content from the public view. I would be more comfortable deleting the article based upon some sort of consensus to do so. Note that I closed the discussion with WP:NPASR (no prejudice against speedy renomination), so feel free to start a new AfD discussion. North America1000 12:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you relist it again and I will ask for input at WP:E&R? It seems pointless starting another new AfD. Thanks, Number   5  7  12:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I note WP:NOQUORUM does not force you to close it as no consensus and allows you to delete it (i.e. "Soft deletion" or "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal"). Can I ask that you reconsider based on this. Number   5  7  12:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While you were typing out the above, I reopened the discussion and relisted it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 15. At this point, I prefer to wait and see if anyone else contributes to the discussion. I'm quite aware of options available per WP:NOQUORUM. As I stated above, in this instance, I would be more comfortable deleting the article based upon some sort of consensus to do so. North America1000 12:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * N.b. The discussion was closed by another user as no consensus. North America1000 21:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)