Open main menu
Northamerica1000 My mailing list Promoted "Did you know" articles My notepad My talk page templates page My accolades page  
Northamerica1000 is presently taking a semi-break from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia Administrator.svgThis user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svgThis user prefers to communicate
on-wiki, rather than by email.


WP Mass Surveillance.jpg
North America

General informationEdit

Misc.Edit

Part of Wikipedia

New articles createdEdit

QuotesEdit

Sources
  1. ^ "Security that goes beyond the impossible". Washington Post. June 3, 2015. Retrieved May 20, 2019.
  2. ^ "Professional Sports Icons Are Just Like Businesspeople". Entrepreneur. May 2, 2016. Retrieved May 20, 2019.

About that rfc on VillagePumpEdit

That Village Pump RFC about POG remaining a guideline got archived without closure, what does that mean? --Hecato (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hecato: The discussions were auto-archived by User:lowercase sigmabot III. I feel that these discussions certainly deserve formal closures. I hesitate to restore them myself, because I have contributed there, and I know that you have too. The way forward, in my opinion, would be to post at WP:AN requesting for an uninvolved admin to restore the discussions to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page, along with adding something from Template:Bump to prevent future auto-archiving from occurring until formal closures occur. If you would like to handle posting a request at WP:AN, please let me know. North America1000 00:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I can make that request if you want. I would post something like:
A Village Pump RfC was archived without closure
The following Village Pump RfC was automatically archived without closure: RFC: Formalize Standing of Portal Guidelines as a Guideline (18 July 2019). I would like to request that an uninvolved admin either closes it officially or reopens it by moving it back to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), with a Bump template added to prevent further accidental archival of the topic. --~~~~
What do you think, does that work? --Hecato (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Hecato: That would be great. I'm a bit busy working on other matters, so I would appreciate it. North America1000 09:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Here's the request on AN --Hecato (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
That request for closure was also archived without closure. Funny how that goes. Should the request be moved back from the archive? --Hecato (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Hecato: Yeah, that's definitely an inferior way for the RfC to end. I view the matter at "RFC: Formalize Standing of Portal Guidelines as a Guideline (18 July 2019)" with an overall consensus there, based upon the overall merits/weight of the arguments presented, is for the page to not be an actual WP:GUIDELINE page (see my commentary and links in the hatted area below), and that a formal closure from a non-involved admin would be best. As I have already contributed to the discussion, I hesitate to become involved in restoring discussions.

It is a bit concerning that those who are typically for the deletion of portals at MfD have not acknowledged that WP:POG in it's present state is not an actual guideline page (permanent link), and that it is still tagged with the {{Under discussion}} template, stating, "The status of this page as a policy or guideline is the subject of a current discussion. Please feel free to join in. This doesn't mean that you may not be bold in editing this page, but that it would be a good idea to check the discussion first." An inconvenient truth, I suppose. Fact is, though, is that admins continue to delete portals without commenting about the RfC matter at all in their closures, also treating the page as an actual guideline when again, in it's present state, it really isn't. Perhaps this notion is based upon overall precedent regarding the page being treated as a guideline, despite the fact that its key points were added ambiguously back in 2006. North America1000 16:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

– The fundamental problem of WP:POG's lede being decided upon by a single user –

At its inception, WP:POG never received actual formal discussion to be enacted as a real English Wikipedia guideline page. Instead, label Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines as an information page using the {{information page}} template. There are many reasons why.

  • The gist of the lead for the portal was added ambiguously and unilaterally by one user in 2006 (diff), and no discussion appears to have actually occurred about it until relatively recently. Guidelines should be decided upon via consensus, not by a unilateral addition of content from one user. Meantime, the page has been treated as an actual guideline, despite the content being based solely upon one person's opinion, which furthermore, was added to the page at its infancy.
  • Furthermore, the page was shortly thereafter marked as historical (diff), with an edit summary stating, "{{historical}}, not an active proposal per lack of talk page activity; suspect lack of advertisement".
  • After this, and importantly, the historical template was removed (diff), with an edit summary stating, "removed historical tag; this was not intended as a proposed Wikipedia Guideline, but merely guidelines as in advice for portal creators." (Underline emphasis mine).
  • Per the diffs, the page was not even intended as a proposed guideline from the start, and no consensus was ever formed for the content therein. The page was intended from the start as an information page. It's actually rather a farce that the page was somehow converted to a guideline page, because there doesn't appear to be any meaningful discussion leading to that change. It's like someone just slapped the Guideline page template page on it and it just simply stuck thereafter, sans any consensus.
  • Furthermore, the lead of the present WP:POG page is worded as an illogical and bizarre syllogism. Some users have been stating that if a portal does not receive what they deem to be adequate page views or maintenance, then the topic itself is somehow not broad enough. Of course, this standard could not be used anywhere else on Wikipedia, because people would reject this as absurd. For example, the Physics article does not receive a great deal of page maintenance, yet the topic itself is obviously broad in scope, both in terms of the topic itself and in terms of the amount of related content available on English Wikipedia. The manner in which this syllogism is worded on the page is subjective and inferior, and has been misused to define topical scope as based upon page views and page maintainers, rather than upon the actual scope of a given topic.
I certainly share your concerns. Well, it needs formal closure. Can I as a non-admin restore that archived request for closure at AN? The rules of that Administrator's noticeboard are a bit opaque to me. I would add that bump template as well. --Hecato (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I leave it up to you. You also contributed to the discussion, so a potential exists that someone could complain that since you restored the discussion, you are then then therefore somehow biased, after the fact, since you contributed there. I've been losing some faith in portal matters, because some of those that are typically for deletion of portals have shown an unfortunate tendency at times to continuously berate those that are interested in improving portals, in what has transpired into a sort of bandwagon effect at times.
At any rate, I may edit in portalspace less, like User:Certes has said here before. There's not much point in working to improve Wikipedia's portal content, only to watch it erased from public view after a few delete "!votes" occur at the under-advertised MfD discussions. North America1000 16:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I also share those feelings. And without trying to sound too paranoid I think that the demoralization of people who are interested in maintaining and improving portals is very much done on purpose on the part of certain users. I did not join Wikipedia to deal with the kind of vitriol and bullying that comes from those users. And I must admit I am slowly losing my temper and started to respond in kind. I guess their bullying was successful since it appears nobody is left to oppose the mass-deletion.
Well, I bumped that AN request. Not that it matters much anymore. --Hecato (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Hecato: Thanks for handling that. It is just and proper for such a contentious matter to receive a formal, admin closure. Otherwise, the page's status remains in limbo, lacking any grounding about whether or not it has any validity from the start. North America1000 19:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Ivory CoastEdit

Hi, I've noticed that you've began maintaining Portal:Ivory Coast. Do you have a long-term plan on how to draw in editors and maintainers alike? (Average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019 are 10 for the portal versus 2898 for the parent article.) If not, then I'm afraid I'll have to nominate the portal at MfD within a week or two. ToThAc (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Same goes for Portal:Ghana. ToThAc (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@ToThAc: The first step was to update the portals with fresh content, using transclusions, so the most up-to-date content is displayed for the reader. The addition of new entries that were previously nonexistent is a part of this process. Then, outdated content was removed or updated, oftentimes replaced with new information. It's a process that takes time.
A very likely reason for low page views is that readers would likely go to portals such as these, realize that there is not much content there, and then not go back. For whatever reasons at MfD, people have not been considering this possibility. A portal with a decent amount of content is more likely to receive return visitors, in my opinion.
Another matter is the presence or lack thereof of visible links to portals. If visible links are not abundant, then people are unlikely to visit them. Since updating the portals, it is hoped that more page views will subsequently transpire as time goes by.
Of course, if these are nominated for deletion, based upon the previous page views and states that the portals were previously in prior to being significantly updated, then this potential will never have a chance to be realized. I think the rush to deletion that has been occurring at times is overly hasty and WP:EAGER in some cases, particularly in instances where portals have been updated as I have described herein.
My plan is to update portals that I have improved from time-to-time, adding new content periodically and rotating content when this would be functional. It seems that some at MfD feel that portals must be updated every day, for hours a day, or something like that, which is unlikely to occur for any Wikipedia content. North America1000 03:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your second point, any improved recreation of a portal that was previously deleted at MfD that clearly takes into account the failures of many portals can always be taken to DRV. I believe Robert McClenon usually says this preemptively during deletion discussions involving portals. I'll comment on some of your other points later. ToThAc (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I have until recently been noting that proposals to re-create deleted portals should be taken to DRV. That is my opinion, and I think that is a check on frivolous re-creations (and there have in the past been frivolous re-creations, which result in zombie portals). Another editor disagrees, and doesn't think that new portal designs are the sort of new information that can go to DRV. There is discussion at the Miscellany for Deletion talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your fifth point, I don't necessarily think portals have to be updated on a daily basis; in fact, I think monthly maintenance would be fine enough. Even if the vast majority of maintainers become inactive for months at a time and the portal is deleted because of that, it can still be taken to DRV if people decide to maintain the portal.
Also, since BrownHairedGirl has voiced various opinions about portals before, perhaps she might be able to weigh in her thoughts on the discussion. ToThAc (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ToThAc: Sorry to budge in, but may I ask what part of a portal needs to be updated monthly? --Hecato (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hecato: I'd say update the selected article count to reflect on the current number of GAs and FAs in the topic area for one, and maybe update the DYKs as well to reflect current information. ToThAc (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ToThAc: Not all portals have hand-selected articles and you could transclude a random article from the current GAs and FAs, which would make updating those unnecessary. I guess you could update DYKs assuming there are any new relevant ones, thought not all portals have a DYK section in the first place. Hand selecting too much content is generally ill-advised because it has a negative effect on portal load time. Sorry, but the demand for monthly updates seems artificial to me. Some portals need frequent updates, some do not. --Hecato (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Someone should review the portal regularly, and fix anything that has become outdated. That raises the question of what to do if the maintainer confirms that Ivory Coast is still a country located on the south coast of West Africa and no update is necessary. Is there then a requirement to make change for change's sake, just to renew the page's status as a Valid Portal? A lot of the good work that goes on at Wikipedia consists of checking which, unless it reveals a problem, doesn't show up in page histories or user contributions. Certes (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, nope. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ivory Coast clearly lists an abysmal eight articles in the upper quality tiers. I'm also seeing problems similar if not identical to those mentioned at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Chad, so I'm afraid you'll have to justify your rationales in an actual deletion discussion. ToThAc (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Africa-related articles and content on English Wikipedia suffer from Wikipedia:Systemic bias, whereby editors do not seem to spend as much time working on these topics compared to other topics. This is part of the reason why there are so few GA and FA articles for Côte d'Ivoire (see below). Perhaps some sort of drive should occur to encourage more work on Africa-related articles. North America1000 19:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

PortalsEdit

@Certes, Hecato, and ToThAc:: I'm considering editing less in portal-space. There's not much point in working to improve Wikipedia's portals, only to have the work erased from public view after a few delete "!votes" occur at the under-advertised MfD discussions. WP:POG is not even an actual guideline at this time (see commentary above), yet it continues to be treated as such. It's all good. Maybe portals are actually not that important? North America1000 17:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to discourage anyone from editing but nor would I want an editor to become disillusioned with Wikipedia by concentrating on an area where their efforts are wasted. We're now down to 660 portals and still losing over 200 a month so (assuming no one puts up more portals to be knocked down) it will all be over by Christmas, and we can start to salvage the remnants next year. One recent development is that, whilst most of the long-term deletion supporters have faded away, they have been replaced by a new intake who don't remember the times when we bothered to !vote keep. They are acting in good faith, because they genuinely believe that POG is uncontroversial, that deletion has near-unanimous support and that their actions are unambiguously helping Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I want to encourage you to keep doing your good work in the portalspace. While there is always a possibility of a sequel to WP:ENDPORTALS, I think we can see the group of portals that are likely to be kept when all is said and done, and your efforts on those portals would be tremendously valuable and not wasted. This may require a shift in effort: instead of focusing on borderline portals to try to save them from an MfD nom., consider focusing instead on making the best portals even better? UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "I am sad to hear that, but I understand how you feel. Regardless of what you do in the future, I want to thank you for your work on the project and portals specifically" is what I said to User:Bermicourt and the same goes for you and Certes. In the end you must decide for yourself how much work (and sanity) you want to spend on portals given the current climate. I certainly will not hold it against you.
Well, as far as I'm concerned, I will continue editing the portals I have adopted. Simply because I promised that I would. Though as things are going at the moment they will also be deleted eventually. I currently do not see much of a point in working on other portal related matters since I appear be rather alone at this point. --Hecato (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks all for the quick and much-appreciated responses. Wow. Well, my guess is to wait until 1st quarter 2020 and then work on what remains, as per User:Certes' prediction above. A problem remains, though, of a potential that the rest may eventually be nixed as well, afterwards. Maybe it's time to quit, to hell with it, and work on other stuff. North America1000 18:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe someone can make a mock/faux "Portal Wars" logo, in the style of the Star Wars logo, and we can display it for years to come! See below for a rudimentary example. North America1000 19:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

— Portal Wars — – The Truth: a non-guideline opinion page treated as a guideline nevertheless. It's all good. Whatever.

– The fundamental problem of WP:POG's lede being decided upon by a single user –

At its inception, WP:POG never received actual formal discussion to be enacted as a real English Wikipedia guideline page. Instead, label Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines as an information page using the {{information page}} template. There are many reasons why.

  • The gist of the lead for the portal was added ambiguously and unilaterally by one user in 2006 (diff), and no discussion appears to have actually occurred about it until relatively recently. Guidelines should be decided upon via consensus, not by a unilateral addition of content from one user. Meantime, the page has been treated as an actual guideline, despite the content being based solely upon one person's opinion, which furthermore, was added to the page at its infancy.
  • Furthermore, the page was shortly thereafter marked as historical (diff), with an edit summary stating, "{{historical}}, not an active proposal per lack of talk page activity; suspect lack of advertisement".
  • After this, and importantly, the historical template was removed (diff), with an edit summary stating, "removed historical tag; this was not intended as a proposed Wikipedia Guideline, but merely guidelines as in advice for portal creators." (Underline emphasis mine).
  • Per the diffs, the page was not even intended as a proposed guideline from the start, and no consensus was ever formed for the content therein. The page was intended from the start as an information page. It's actually rather a farce that the page was somehow converted to a guideline page, because there doesn't appear to be any meaningful discussion leading to that change. It's like someone just slapped the Guideline page template page on it and it just simply stuck thereafter, sans any consensus.
  • Furthermore, the lead of the present WP:POG page is worded as an illogical and bizarre syllogism. Some users have been stating that if a portal does not receive what they deem to be adequate page views or maintenance, then the topic itself is somehow not broad enough. Of course, this standard could not be used anywhere else on Wikipedia, because people would reject this as absurd. For example, the Physics article does not receive a great deal of page maintenance, yet the topic itself is obviously broad in scope, both in terms of the topic itself and in terms of the amount of related content available on English Wikipedia. The manner in which this syllogism is worded on the page is subjective and inferior, and has been misused to define topical scope as based upon page views and page maintainers, rather than upon the actual scope of a given topic.

Sandbox questionEdit

Hey NA1k: somehow some code on your sandbox page is putting it into 3 mainspace categories, Category:Rivers of Ghana, Category:Prime Ministers of São Tomé and Príncipe and Category:Príncipe Island League, which is a non-no (see WP:USERNOCAT). Could you check the code and fix that for me? Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian: Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. North America1000 06:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
You are very welcome, and thank you for the quick response. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Just for confirmationEdit

Hello Northamerica1000, Greetings!
Just recalling our prev. discussion here; Article Opinion polling... is accepted from draft in AfC whose status is 'unreviewed' in New pages feed (as on 20-Sep-2019). If AfC reviewer is autopatrolled then the article is auto-reviewed, or is there any other technicality? --Gpkp [utc] 17:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gpkp: The Opinion polling for the 2022 Brazilian general election page is presently not marked as patrolled. I am going to pass on doing so, the sources are all in Portuguese, which I am not fluent in. It's unclear why the page was not marked as patrolled, because the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script was used. Since User:Bkissin accepted the article via AfC, perhaps they would be willing to mark the page as patrolled. North America1000 18:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I too hope so. Thank you, Northamerica1000. --Gpkp [utc] 11:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Northamerica1000".