User talk:Northamerica1000

My link of the day: Anchoring

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

• 
  Market Scene. 1569 oil on panel by Pieter Aertsen (circa 1508–1575)

afd close

I reverted your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tercer Grado, as I considered thatthe nomination statement essentially meant inadequate evidence for notability , which is a valid reason. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• @DGG: That's all right. I considered leaving it open, but the nom technically does not have a valid rationale for deletion, although it indirectly suggests notability concerns without actually stating so ("... only one film review presented"). However, it's important to keep in mind that per WP:NEXIST, potential notability or lack thereof is not based upon the state of sourcing within articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), this edit is flat out vandalism removing source material. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 07:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Valoem: Since you feel that way, an option is to consider discussing the matter on the user's talk page. Perhaps the user can provide additional information regarding this content removal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I did he removed it acknowledge vandalism, I don't understand why an established editor would removed sourced information.. He made it pretty clear he doesn't believe Wikipedia is for this type of information. Instead of responding he reverted. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 07:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Valoem: I see, as per the Revision history of the user talk page. It's unfortunate when a user blanks content when concerns are presented, rather than actually discussing the concerns. Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative environment, rather than a battleground. Well, if you feel that the user is engaging in disruptive editing, you could post a case at WP:ANI. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This editor tends to remove sources before nominating this is a problem. He has been around enough to know this is not proper, I just gave him a proper warning. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 07:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Valoem: Well, since the user won't discuss the matter with you on their talk page, WP:ANI is likely the best place to present your concerns at this time. In this manner, other users can weigh-in with their thoughts regarding your concerns. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI is a mess, I messaged DGG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 07:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Valoem: Duly noted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Annie Wan

That AfD is really fascinating. The notable artist is the 1961 Annie Wan who is a professor and who is in multiple university collections. Not really sure how to go about correcting the giant mess that the article is. TNT?104.163.154.101 (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have provided a response at the deletion discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• I am very pleased that you have been able to welcome the new editor that has questioned Annie Wan and is about to tackle TNT. Outstanding work having just joined us a few days ago. Castlemate (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Castlemate: Thanks. I consider it good form to welcome new users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately that user is exhibiting anything but good form. Castlemate (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Split?

Should Jim's Steaks and Jim's Steaks South Street be split? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 09:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Valoem: My opinion is that it's best to keep all content in one article at this time. Otherwise, a potential deletion discussion could occur that ends with merging the content back into one of the articles, which would be a big waste of time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

General Host and Bond Bread

Two more you may be interested in. I got tired of the research after a while so I moved them live and figured others can expand if they want. General Host has quite a bit of history missing on the page but since both are now defunct it makes finding accurate information quite difficult. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi @CNMall41: Thanks for creating the new articles. I have made a few minor edits, and may perform more at some later time. I'm presently taking a sort of a wikibreak. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Dessert carts and Voiture trolleys

Hello, my friend. I ran across Voiture trolley. No pic here or commons. Is this basically a trolley with food that they wheel around? is a Dessert cart one kind? What about those dim sum carts and those on planes? Must it have wheels? Can it have wheels? Are we missing an article or coverage somehow? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Anna Frodesiak: Per a find sources template I added to the article talk page, there's not a lot of internet sources around for the topic. There's Food cart, which deals with larger carts, but perhaps something about this and other smaller carts could be included in that article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, I don't see much that can be used from that article.

Image 1

So, no refs. It says it can be just a tray. No wheels. That doesn't sound right. So Image 1 in Fake food a Voiture trolley? No wheels.

We have lots of these displays here. No wheels.

If you ask me, "Voiture trolleys" is talking about wheels and we need some sort of coverage that talks about it all. The best I can think of is maybe Display food or something that is a known term. That can talk about dessert carts, fake food, merge in (bold redirect, no procedure) Voiture trolleys, and all the variants. Then cross-link food cart. Then we get coverage where it cannot fit elsewhere, a headquarter for the subject, and an article with refs that a lot of other articles can link to. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak: Go for it; create the new article. If you do so, just let me know, as I can likely contribute in my spare time. Below are some usable images. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• 
  Dessert cart
• 
  Dessert cart
• 
  Dim sum on a cart
• 
  A food pushcart, 1896
• 
  Frankfurter pushcart (Hot dog cart)
• 
  Peanut pushcart
• 
  Design for Serving Table on Wheels, 1900–05
• 
  Design for Rolling Serving Table with Three Trays, 1900–05
• 
  Design for Rolling Serving Table with Two Legs, 1900–05
• 
  Candy cart
• 
  Restaurant serving cart
• 
  Food vendor on Wheels
• 
  Barista on wheels
• 
  Coconuts in wheelbarrow
• 
  ... not a food cart, but yum, dim sum!
• 
  ... also not a food cart

When did redirect become merge?

Please see this redirect and please explain how the information was “merged”. It appears to me it was simply redirected so none of the information was actually merged. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Atsme: Per the Revision history of the Matt Lauer article, nothing appears to actually have been merged. As such, I reverted the redirect (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I merged it...yikes, wish there was an easier way. If you would, please check to make sure I did it correctly - my question would be about making sure the edit history goes with it, and if the TP needs to go with it, too. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So sorry to bother you again. When considering consensus to merge, I followed the supplement Wikipedia:Delete_or_merge#Role in dispute resolution but there are two editors who have assumed a WP:BATTLEGROUND position; one of whom just deleted most of what was decided in the merge consensus. See the edit history - they removed almost all that was merged. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Atsme: I'm simply busy working on entirely other matters at this time. I will check in on this matter a bit later, perhaps tomorrow, which still may fall within today via UTC time... North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

See this revert - another battleground editor, even after I explained on the TP. This is just wrong. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Atsme: I noticed that. It may take some time for talk page discussion to delineate just how much content should be merged. For what it's worth, oftentimes the content of entire articles are not merged verbatim. I recommend allowing more time for discussion on the talk page.

Also, you can consider notifying all participants at the AfD discussion using neutrally-worded language alerting them to the issue. It would have to be done this way (neutrally worded, all participants) to eliminate potential problems as per WP:CANVASS. As those users already have some interest in the topic, per contributing to the AfD discussion, this could be a way to obtain more input in hopes of attaining consensus. Since some users choose not to receive notifications via pinging, the most efficient way to do this would be to notify each AfD participant on their respective talk pages. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I make one revert by a TB editor, and get my hand slapped for battleground behavior, but others can totally disrupt an article, revert blocks of text against consensus, and nothing happens? How is this fair? *sigh* ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: Although I closed the AfD discussion with the merge result, I hesitate to become significantly involved in matters regarding the actual merge itself. That said, this will likely take time. You may want to consider neutrally notifying interested users, as per my above comment. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's fair that the merge was deleted after a #redirect was added, so I'm reverting my redirect. The article will stand until they reach yet another consensus to decide what they want to merge while basically ignoring the current consensus not to delete but to merge which apparently means nothing. Why should anyone respect a consensus anywhere if they aren't respecting the consensus to merge? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Help please!

My user contribution page just started acting strange. Can you help me to restore it, please. Jzsj (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Jzsj: User contribution pages rarely have problems. Yours seems to be in order from my end. What is the problem that you are noticing? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• I formerly just clicked "Contributions" at the top of my user page and the whole list popped up. Now it keeps asking for dates and "Hide probably good edits" keeps showing, and when I remove that and add dates it still doesn't "search", but the "Hide probably good edits" keeps returning. Is there somewhere in my preferences or lasting setup that I can restore the old settings? Jzsj (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Jzsj: Well, I'm not the most knowledgeable about this technical aspect of Wikipedia. It's normal for a full list to be displayed when simply selecting "Contributions". There are various check boxes you can change via ticking or unticking, which may create your intended result. You could try changing settings in preferences→Recent changes→Revision scoring on Recent changes, Related changes, and Contributions and see if that helps (I'm unsure if it would or not). I have also had problems with getting specific dates to load using the user contributions page. Another idea is to try using a different internet browser and then see if the problem persists. If any of this doesn't help, or even if it does, you can also post a question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where someone more knowledgeable may be able to provide more specific advice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks, I'll try the pump. Jzsj (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)