Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:10, 1 April 2016

This user is busy, and a timely response may not occur at times. If emailing notify me here using a {{You've got mail}} template, otherwise, you may not receive a response.

This user prefers to communicate on-wiki, rather than by email.

Archives

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

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

DYK for Agliata

On 22 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Agliata, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that agliata sauce originated from the times of Ancient Rome, at which time it was a peasant food that was also used by the upper classes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agliata. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Agliata, again

Say, Northamerica1000,

does this article require the description of the porrata twice, one in the lede and the other in the "Similar food" paragraph? It's a small article.

BTW, since I've corrected the spelling, it's "porrata", instead of "poratta", I've linked it to the main and most reputable dictionary of the italian language, published by the "Accademia della Crusca".

79.55.132.96 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Check out WP:MOSLEAD, where it states that key points in Misplaced Pages articles should be mentioned in the lead: "the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". Thanks for fixing the spelling error in the article. North America 11:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It still seems an oversize lead for such a short article to me, but I think I've got where you're leading. Thanks! 79.55.132.96 (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Relists

Why were Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of One: Kagayaku Kisetsu e characters and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Air characters relisted? I see more than sufficient consensus to merge. czar 15:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Czar:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of One: Kagayaku Kisetsu e characters – you seem to be discounting the two delete !votes in the discussion.
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Air characters – The first !vote after the nomination states "Weak delete/merge". If the "weak delete" part wasn't there, then sure, but it is there.

Neither of these discussions have a strong merge consensus at this time in my opinion, although they are leaning merge. The second discussion has a stronger merge consensus forming, though, compared to the former listed above. North America 16:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

But AfD is not about counting heads? The consensus, in both discussions, is very clearly against keeping. And if some editors want to merge, or already have, the article needs to be redirected to preserve attribution... Straightforward case. czar 16:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Czar: No, AfD discussions are not closed based upon a vote count. They are closed based upon the strengths of arguments and overall/rough consensus in discussions. As stated above, why are you discounting the two delete !votes in the first discussion? It appears that you are basing matters upon a count, whereby three merge !votes somehow obliterates the two delete !votes present, which are both guideline-based. While consensus is "against keeping" at this point, this does not devalue the delete !votes in the discussion. North America 16:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I was saying the opposite—that your analysis was based on headcounts when it should be by consensus, which is against keeping the article and implicitly for merger. The first two delete "!votes" are not actual hardline stances for deletion. I would think that you already know that editors explicitly state whey they are opposed to redirection when that is the case and otherwise we default to redirect/merge when reasonable. Anyway, your rationale does not appear amenable to change so thanks anyway czar 19:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A general comment, without looking at the two cases you are discussing: Personally, if a few people say delete and then someone (often late in the discussion) comes up with a credible redirect target, I pretty much always do the redirect no matter what the "count" was. In most cases, the earlier delete !voters would have accepted redirect as an acceptable alternative if they had seen it, and IMO redirects are almost always preferable to deletion. Still, this is a matter of discretion for each admin to decide for themselves. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Some people delete the article and then create a redirect; I only do that if there was strong opinion that the article and its history should be outtahere. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar and MelanieN: Most of the time, discussions should be closed based upon the overall consensus for a particular outcome, rather than based upon the simpler premise of a consensus based upon whether or not the article will be retained, or if a discussion simply goes "against keeping". The first two delete !votes in the first-listed AfD discussion above (after the nomination) could certainly be intrepreted as actual hardline stances, because they advocate for deletion and provide a guideline-based rationale for doing so.

I think it's problematic to assume that all "editors explicitly state whey they are opposed to redirection" in AfD discussions, because this is simply not the case whatsoever in most discussions. Many users do not provide redirect opinions at all. This stance assumes that if users do not state opposition to a redirect, then it may be interpreted that they support or are not against one. Unless user's directly state their opinion about a particular matter, such as redirects, it's a bit of a slippery slope to then assume their opinion in one manner or another.

This is per my extensive experience in Afd participation and provision of closures in hundreds of discussions. People aren't necessarily going to add detailed rationales about other potential outcomes, particularly when they are not for those outcomes. However, this is not always the case. Note that a user in the first-listed discussion provided an !vote after the relisting, which advocates deletion while not objecting to a redirect, although also not particularly advocating for one either, per the wording of "without objection" rather than stating "delete and redirect", or something to that nature. The user is also clear in their opposition to a merge.

I'm not seeing anything on the Misplaced Pages Deletion process or Deletion policy pages stating that redirection or merging are defaulted to in AfD discussion closures as you suggest above. The notion of dafaulting to redirection and merging when such opinion is not directly stated by users appears to be your subjective opinion, rather than based upon guidelines or policies. WP:ATD-R states that unsuitable articles with useful titles can sometimes simply be redirected, but provides no guidance about this stance after an article has been nominated for deletion.

In AfD discussions, when users opine for deletion only, it should not be assumed that they are instead for redirection or not opposed to redirection in lieu of their delete !vote. When users are for redirection, it's quite likely that they would state this from the start. North America 01:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the point is more that redirection is always a preferable alternative to deletion unless there is a consensus otherwise. czar 01:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

North, I'm not trying to be argumentative or say that you are wrong; your approach is valid and defensible. I'll just say that I don't agree with this: When users are for redirection, it's quite likely that they would state this from the start. Usually what happens is that nobody thinks about redirection, or suggests a valid redirection target, until later in the discussion. When someone does come up with a valid redirect target, earlier commenters will sometimes change their !vote to redirect, but more commonly they have moved on and don't return to that discussion to see that the possibility of redirection has been suggested. In my experience it's actually very rare to have an earlier commenter come back and say, "No, I don't agree with redirect, I still think it should be deleted." A delete !vote coming AFTER redirection has been suggested should be interpreted as opposed to redirection, but a delete !vote coming BEFORE redirection has been suggested merely expresses that the article should not remain as an article - and that redirect hadn't occurred to them. And as the saying goes, Misplaced Pages:Redirects are cheap (essay, not policy).--MelanieN (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I understand your points, but we should not use crystal ball or Magic 8-Ball theorizing to guess or assume that users who don't !vote for redirection have not considered this option when others later !vote for redirection. North America 11:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash

Hi,

As an admin who's contributed to the deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, you might want to take a look at this:

User_talk:Adam9007#Wikipedia_is_not_your_political_forum

Very strange (not to mention downright unacceptable) if you ask me. Adam9007 (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Well, this is an election year, so people will disagree and bicker about political topics. I don't think I want to interject there, which could potentially serve to exacerbate the discussion there in a negative manner. Hopefully people will work out their differences. Article deletion is based upon several variables, such as coverage in reliable sources and consensus in deletion discussions, so one person's strong desire to have content deleted cannot be arbitrarily performed without proving the matter objectively.

Maybe the website's creators should change its name to "Bernie Sanders' Diggity Dank Meme Stash". North America 11:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I added a short comment at Talk:Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash that is related to the discussion you pointed me to on your talk page. North America 11:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkbacks

Simply letting you know these talkbacks are actually rather unnecessary as I watchlist every AfD I participate or otherwise touch. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: All right, but you have a tendency to ping users to participate in or revisit AfD discussions, whereas other users often don't ping you when responding to your commentary. As such, it seemed proper to let you know about a user comment. For what it's worth, please consider trying to be a bit clearer at AfD. For example at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pet Lamb, you stated, "Delete at best for now and Draft and Userfy if needed". However, articles are typically either userfied or draftified, but not both. Perhaps you could have worded it as "Draft or Userfy". Just a suggestion. North America 07:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Third opinion

Is this the right location for third opinions? Misplaced Pages talk:Third opinion#Possible sneaky vandalism from SummerPhDv2.0 regarding Jim.27s Steaks and Dalessandro.27s Steaks? Valoem 02:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Valoem: Another user closed the discussion you started on the talk page there and provided instructions (posts go on the main page at WP:3O). FYI there's also the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard as an option you may consider, but you should only choose one of the two forums. North America 06:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic Biophysics

Can you please userfy this plus the talk page for me. This is notable , , and many other sources. I would like to see what the condition of the article was in and improve it. Valoem 21:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Valoem: I'm going to decline this request at this time, because 1) consensus at the AfD discussion was very strong for deletion of the article, which included discussion about WP:MEDRS issues regarding the availability of sources, and 2) the sources you provided above are not sufficient to establish topic notability. Here's summary of the sources you provided above:

• – The article is almost exclusively about issues regarding opioids, and provides no information about chiropractic biophysics itself, other than a mention of it at the end of the article in the author credit. It's also a primary source that is not independent from the overall topic, so it's not usable to establish topic notability. Note at the top of the article, where it states, "SPONSORED CONTENT PROVIDED BY R. TODD SHAVER - DOCTOR OF CHIROPRACTIC , SHAVER CHIROPRACTIC & NATURAL MEDICINE".
• – Does not provide significant coverage about the topic, just passing mentions.

To establish notability, topics require having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If you are able to find such coverage, I recommend compiling them and then making a post at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review regarding the article. North America 04:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but any editor acting in good faith should be allowed to retain a copy of the article. This allows me to see what state it was in and improve and rewrite the article. I will obviously go to DRV, this is very unfortunate given we've have pleasant interactions in the past. Valoem 04:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Valoem: I'm not questioning your motives of faith, so please don't take matters personally. Per the circumstances of the article and deletion discussion, I am not comfortable bucking consensus to userfy the article in Misplaced Pages user namespace at this time. If you'd like, I can email you copies of the content you requested above. If you choose this option, and then improve the content to satisfy notability requirements, I seriously suggest submitting the article to Articles for creation, where the content can be reviewed. An easy way to do this when you're ready is to place {{Userspace draft}} atop the draft page and then select the "Submit your draft for review" link. North America 05:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to make it sound personal. I understand that there is nothing to work on and better to start from scratch its one of the problems with Misplaced Pages not allowing non-admins to view deleted content. Also its perfect fine to decline if the content falls under A11, or copyright vio, I thought the article was sourced, it was not made clear the content was not workable, apologies for the misunderstanding. Valoem 06:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The same problems are happening at Koren Specific Technique. Mass MEDRS violations everywhere. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• N.b. See the following discussion at DGG's talk page (diff). North America 15:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

• @Wilhelmina Will: Thanks for the Easter cheer. Hey, just a reminder that I'm still waiting for your GA reviews at the following pages (it's been around 20 days since you accepted to review them): Talk:Mushroom ketchup/GA1, Talk:Vegetable chips/GA1, Talk:Deep-fried butter/GA1, Talk:Avocado cake/GA1. I have performed additional work on all of the articles to touch them up, and they are definitely ready for review. North America 04:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Project Accuracy

May I impose and ask you to please consider joining me as a coordinator for WP:Project Accuracy (WPA)? The initial plan is to recruit 3 or 5 WPA coordinators to oversee the project, work collaboratively with the various project teams regarding their GA and FA promotions, and become part of or help with the creation of an editorial review board (or team or committee)? An editor recently suggested a possible name change to "Accredited review" or "Accredited editor". WPA is in its embryonic stages of development, and I am currently in discussions with a WMF staffer who is helping me get things coordinated for a possible grant. 13:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Atsme: I'll need time to consider this matter. Thanks for the invitation. North America 13:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, NA1000 - I have a discussion scheduled today with WMF staff to help polish the proposal and iron out the kinks. It would help greatly if I could demonstrate that I had at least 3 quality editors who are supporting it. One of the things I wanted to propose is that part of the grant money would be used for special incentives wherein WPA offers monetary awards to the winning project team for having the most WPA promoted submissions. This is one of the reasons we need 5 to 7 primary project coordinators helping with such details) Example - the winner of the contest is the team (or it could be an individual) who submits the most FAs that receive the RAA gold seal within a certain time frame. Such a contest would encourage more editors to join a project team and further encourage quality output. It would also encourage collaboration and help immensely in achieving the kinds of articles we need. Let's say the Project Med team wins with their submission of 20 FAs that were promoted by WPA with their RAA gold seal (the project team members did the majority of the substantive editing, were involved in the review process, etc). All 20 FAs get promoted to RAA (reviewed and approved). The team gets recognized for winning the contest but in addition to the trophy (badge of some sort) they also receive $xxx or equivalent product the WMF could get donated. After WPA announces which team wins, the winning team determines who receives the $. I would think the recipients would be the active team members who actually registered to be in the contest and did the work which can be confirmed by their edit history for the promoted articles. Just an idea I'm tossing out for some of the incentives the grant could help us achieve. 14:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This day's This Special Day's article for improvement (day 1, month 4, 2016)

Hello! The following is WikiProject This Special Day's articles for improvement's daily selection: Skvader Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Snipe hunt • Jenny Haniver Get involved with the TSDAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Share this message with other editors Posted by: w.carter-Talk 00:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC) using New improved MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of WikiProject TSDAFI •

Oh...?

diff link? Schmidt, 04:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You are blocked

--Tito Dutta (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Whoa, added a template below. Cheers! North America 05:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

You fooled me. HighInBC 05:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sure, I was going to add a note tomorrow. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Tito Dutta and HighInBC: My response: . North America 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I got him back for you. As for you, I get you next year! But not with a fake block template. That's a little much. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Wheel war! Wheel war! This is better than a food fight (although lord knows how Northamerica1000 loves a good food fight ). Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Lean finely textured beef in its finished form.png

Thanks for uploading File:Lean finely textured beef in its finished form.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Misplaced Pages. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

December 2004

(April fools). –Davey2010 12:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I wasn't registered in 2004. I think you got the wrong person. North America 12:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ahh well I work for the Mi5 and I believe you're using 2 accounts.... because you're Jimbo Wales .... Are you apart of the Illuminati ? ... Maybe I'm apart of it .... who knows –Davey2010 13:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Actually, I'm a unicorn, and I live in a magical land with fairies and elves. North America 14:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Oo oo are trolls allowed ?, I'm one big troll .... I have a lovely nose tho , –Davey2010 14:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey again Davey! North America 14:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – April 2016

[REDACTED] The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Volume III, no. 5, Note: To opt out from receiving future newsletters, please click here for instructions.
Project News Recent Good article promotions for project-related articles. — View by clicking  — The following food and drink articles have recently been promoted to Good article-class: Applesauce cake Beurre Maître d'Hôtel Chips and dip Clementine cake Copia (museum) Dime Store (Portland, Oregon) Naem Old-fashioned doughnut Pancake machine Pink slime The Modern Cook For recent events regarding project-related articles, see Article alerts. Article alerts — View by clicking  — Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sed placerat ipsum urna sed risus. In convallis tellus a mauris. Curabitur non elit ut libero tristique sodales. Mauris a lacus. Donec mattis semper leo. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Vivamus facilisis diam at odio. Mauris dictum, nisi eget consequat elementum, lacus ligula molestie metus, non feugiat orci magna ac sem. Donec turpis. Donec vitae metus. Morbi tristique neque eu mauris. Quisque gravida ipsum non sapien. Proin turpis lacus, scelerisque vitae, elementum at, lobortis ac, quam. Aliquam dictum eleifend risus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam sit amet diam. Suspendisse odio. Suspendisse nunc. In semper bibendum libero. Proin nonummy, lacus eget pulvinar lacinia, pede felis dignissim leo, vitae tristique magna lacus sit amet eros. Nullam ornare. Praesent odio ligula, dapibus sed, tincidunt eget, dictum ac, nibh. Nam quis lacus. Nunc eleifend molestie velit. Morbi lobortis quam eu velit. Donec euismod vestibulum massa. Donec non lectus. Aliquam commodo lacus sit amet nulla. Cras dignissim elit et augue. Nullam non diam. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Aenean vestibulum. Sed lobortis elit quis lectus. Nunc sed lacus at augue bibendum dapibus.	Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project. — View by clicking  — 6 new members!OnBeyondZebraxVMS MosaicMartinyoung2775Omni FlamesCAPTAIN RAJUEdwardx The project currently has 106 active members. Some recent food and drink new articles and content: — View by clicking  — National Identification Registration Authority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Fsmatovu (talk · contribs · new pages (41)) started on 2016-03-31, score: 10 Domaine Tempier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Needlepoint9 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-31, score: 20 Kill Time (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by In ictu oculi (talk · contribs · new pages (105)) started on 2016-03-30, score: 10 Indian Tea Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Rohanrafaroger (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-30, score: 10 Tops Pizza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Edwardx (talk · contribs · new pages (51)) started on 2016-03-30, score: 20 Kaspa's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Edwardx (talk · contribs · new pages (51)) started on 2016-03-29, score: 20 Faktong Keang Buat (Pumpkin in Coconut Cream) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Woraveerinj (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-29, score: 20 Darra Goldstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Jeffreyrubel (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-21, score: 10 Cervecería 100 Montaditos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Kanghuitari (talk · contribs · new pages (55)) started on 2016-03-29, score: 10 Potentilla simplex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Ggpauly (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-29, score: 10 Burger urge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Lindsmay10 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-28, score: 10 B & D Burgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Bennyben1998 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 33 Beer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Legacypac (talk · contribs · new pages (63)) started on 2016-03-26, score: 10 F-Block Metallocene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by YanwuShao (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 10 Bamboo Chicken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Divyaappidi (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-23, score: 10 Jianbing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Jmps2016 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 Friends of Beer Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Bedivere.cs (talk · contribs · new pages (3)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 Miniature food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Groupgg (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 English Tea House and Restaurant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Molecule Extraction (talk · contribs · new pages (9)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 Bazin (bread) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs · new pages (14)) started on 2016-03-27, score: 10 Cyprus Wine Routes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Euclidthalis (talk · contribs · new pages (2)) started on 2016-03-24, score: 10 Taking Care of Business (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by The Dragooners (talk · contribs · new pages (87)) started on 2016-03-26, score: 10 Pastrami on rye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Onel5969 (talk · contribs · new pages (19)) started on 2016-03-26, score: 30 Pictou County Pizza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Kelapstick (talk · contribs · new pages (2)) started on 2016-03-26, score: 10 Wasabi (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Edwardx (talk · contribs · new pages (51)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 10 William S. Bloxsom-Carter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Kcwatson55 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 20 List of the largest fast food restaurant chains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Cupido1234 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 10 Food - Weapon of Conquest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Bzuk (talk · contribs · new pages (9)) started on 2016-03-24, score: 20 Margot Henderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Gareth E. Kegg (talk · contribs · new pages (25)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 10 Sam's Chicken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Edwardx (talk · contribs · new pages (51)) started on 2016-03-25, score: 10 Deep Fried Oreo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Cla1402group4 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2016-03-24, score: 10 Past newsletters
Food and drink articles by quality and importance There are currently 34,474 articles attributed to the project, including 10,607 stubs. There are 38 articles at Featured article class, 185 are at Good article class and 3 are at Featured list class. — View by clicking  — Article statistics Food and Drink WikiProject article assessment Food and drink articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 7 15 32 54 FL 2 2 4 FM 146 146 GA 19 33 79 286 417 B 56 230 346 717 89 1,438 C 76 406 1,013 3,626 554 5,675 Start 22 326 1,674 12,185 3,931 18,138 Stub 16 525 9,024 4,907 14,472 List 12 71 115 559 23 276 1,056 Category 9,140 9,140 Disambig 221 221 File 3,021 3,021 Portal 811 811 Project 440 440 Redirect 10 72 639 2,878 3,599 Template 1,052 1,052 NA 13 13 Other 200 200 Assessed 185 1,101 3,839 27,070 17,945 9,757 59,897 Unassessed 14 1,958 1,972 Total 185 1,101 3,839 27,084 17,945 11,715 61,869 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 205,370 Ω = 5.11 Assessment log and Guide to Assessment Help on Editing and Sourcing Articles view

– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

WWE Hall of Fame

I removed the information from the WWE Hall of Fame wiki page because it was inaccurate. It's as simple as that. DaveA2424 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@DaveA2424: Please consider using edit summaries, as I suggested at your talk page (diff). North America 17:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the same content due to inaccurate information and included an edit summary this time. DaveA2424 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. This makes it clearer to others when you make such changes. North America 18:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

An April Fools Salmon for you

	An April Fools Salmon for you
	Happy April Fools Day! I hope you’re not too disorientated from the festivities. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

AfDs

No, I can entirely say that those Transformers AfDs were not going towards any other result and I myself would've participated but it was clear enough, not to mention because the article had no signs of independent notability. Furthermore, threatening me with ANI is completely unnecessary as my participation at AfD outweighs any "troubles" I am supposedly causing. Furthermore, I know I have not been the only one to close an AfD and not merge the contents as mentioned, after all the contents are always in the history logs anyway. Furthermore, if you're going to mention the "too early", AfD also states that if a consensus is clear enough as it was with Transformers, it may be closed (two or three votes are enough at best and AfDs have been closed as such before). I'm going to be honest, if you and I can't see eye to eye, it may be best for us not to closely encounter each other. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: I'm an administrator and perform a great deal of work at AfD, so it would be irresponsible of me to ignore these types of errors that occur. Please don't take it personally. As I explained on your talk page:

• At the deletion guideline page at Misplaced Pages:Deletion process § Early closure, it states "In general, deletion discussions should remain open for at least seven days (168 hours) to allow interested editors adequate time to participate". Please allow for a full seven days before closing AfD discussions.

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Foot selfie and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Android association football games were closed as merge, but the proper templates were not added to the article pages and merge target talk pages. You closed the discussions with a merge result (diff) and a "merge and redirect" result (diff), but then redirected the articles against consensus. There was not enough user input at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cab (Transformers) (link after reverting your closure) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Checkpoint (Transformers) (link after reverting the close) to warrant early closures for these discussions either, and I feel that your reading of the consensus is not entirely accurate.

• The Administrator instructions for closing with a merge result need to be followed, because these procedures were determined through discussion and consensus. It is entirely unclear why you're against following the proper procedures, and it comes across that your closures may potentially include the interjection of your personal preferences. It's very simple, just follow the proper procedures.

For the early closures, how did you determine a consensus for redirection (diff, diff)? At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cab (Transformers) the nominator essentially only opines for deletion, one user opines to "Keep or Merge" and one opines to "Merge and Redirect". Note that "Merge and Redirect" means just that, not just to only redirect. After merges occur, the page is then redirected.

It's exactly the same situation at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Checkpoint (Transformers)

I've explained the process for merges before on your talk page before (diff), and you provided no response. After this, you then continued to close discussions as merge without following the Administrator instructions. This is why I mentioned the notion of ANI if my sincere requests continue to be ignored.

Why not just follow the proper procedures? It's in the best interest of the encyclopedia, and the !votes of users that opine for merging should be respected, rather than ignored. North America 19:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @SwisterTwister: If I may add a note here: I saw this comment above from you about early closure, "it may be closed (two or three votes are enough at best and AfDs have been closed as such before", and I strongly disagree with it. I would never early-close a discussion with just two or three !votes. In fact I think (and Misplaced Pages instructions state) that discussions should very rarely be closed early. They should stay open for 7 days except for the occasional case of SPEEDY or SNOW. A SNOW close is not 2 or 3 !votes; it is IMO at least 6, policy based, with no dissents - a discussion that has "not a snowball's chance in hell" of any other result. I know you have been participating at AfD for a very long time; please listen to advice from a couple of admins who have also been working at AfD for years. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)