DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you. You and Montanabw sound real friendly, just what I'd expect in Montana. PumpkinSkytalk 21:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done about all I can with Flathead Indian Reservation. With a couple of good refs with new info we could expand it enough to make it DYK eligible. PumpkinSkytalk 23:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See question for you on my talk page in the Wanna Job? thread. PumpkinSkytalk 21:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Big Bully
It wasn't a personal issue it was just a real issue. I have tried civil dialog with “BW” in the past and trust me it’s pointless. And I really tire of watching this person act as if they own the Montana page. There is really no need for the rude comments added whenever someone attempts to add something to the page, people have feelings. Maybe “BW” should take a few things to the talk page before kicking them out with a rude comment. Just calling it as I see it.
Thanks for your input and thank you for being civil I do appreciate it!
Mike, do you want us to edit your sandbox or do you want to move it to main space first? Montanabw and I are ready to help. PumpkinSkytalk 22:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is currently ref ll won't load either and as a blog, I just found out a day or two ago, probably wouldn't be considered a reliable source. PumpkinSkytalk 00:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--
I'm not sure what the problem with the reference are as they work fine for me. The Bozeman Chronicle reference is important. As the for the LA Blog reference, my inclination is to keep it as it is historically focused and provides facts not otherwise available. Unless it is explicity challenged, keep it in.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither ref comes up for me in FF but the Bozeman Chronicle does come up in IE. The Blog one does not come up in IE, so you or someone the url works for will have to write up that one. I'm adding the Bozeman one in now. I'll leave the blog one in but can't write about it. Let me know if there's more I or BW can help you with. PumpkinSkytalk 22:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link DOES work for me. May be an issue with cookies or a browser-add-on. Blog refs in general can bite us in the butt if the article ever goes to GA or FA, may be challenged by the excessively fussy even without drawing the eye of a GA reviewer, but I personally have no immediate kick if the material has other indicia of accuracy (footnotes, etc...) Montanabw(talk) 23:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually looked that up once and don't think there is a connection--just a coincidence. Am going to go live this morning with the article and will ask for you and Montanabw to get DYK credit. Thanks for the help. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I wonder how the town got its name then. I'll gladly help out more with the article. Thanks for allowing us credit too. PumpkinSkytalk 13:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This DYK nomination is formatted incorrectly. I'm not sure how you managed it, but it looks like what you did was create the subpage (by entering the article name and clicking the "Create nomination" link at
T:TDYK, but then pasting in your own nomination template rather than filling out the template that was preloaded. I think I have fixed it, but in the future please just fill out the template as detailed in the instructions. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Ambassador Program: assessment drive
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up
here
, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.
In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.
Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.
Hi Mike Cline. I think the above AfD should have been closed differently. Although there were five keep votes and only two deletes, three of the keep voters were SPAs and were tagged as such. None of the keep voters could refute the argument that the subject lacked significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Their main counter to this was that he was quoted a lot and so this constituted "recognition". That is not, in my understanding, the meaning of the word with respect to notability. Another argument used was that he fitted some subject-specific guideline. It is doubtful that he belongs to them, and even then it wasn't proved he satisfied any of them (eg it was claimed he was "cited by peers" when this was not proven). In any case, people satisfying subject specific guidelines still need to satisfy the GNG, and in this case, in which people were in contact with the article subject and exhaustive searches were performed, there is no reason to not do so. Therefore, I wonder if it is possible to overturn the close to a delete? Christopher Connor (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mike Cline. Mr. Connor's original and maintained contention is the GNG guidelines specify "significant, independent coverage". My original and maintained contention is the GNG guidelines specify and elaborate to admit "significant, independent coverage
or
recognition". Thus I felt it again (and unfortunately) necessary to add a response.
Mr. Connor has always been on point, rational, cogent and polite (and I would guess a valuable contributor to Wiki), so I believe that Mr. Connor's disagreement stems from his personal standards for notability. Mr. Connor's personal standards are to be commended. But the issue that was discussed in the AfD was Wikipedia's standards. As such, it is clear to me that Mr. Julian satisfies the GNG of significant recognition in independent, reliable sources as evidenced by Mr. Julian's having been vetted by the most notable financial news networks and his commentary on those programs invariably having been scrutinized by the independent moderators and hosts. This kind of coverage counters Mr. Connor's assertion that "None of the keep voters could refute the argument that the subject lacked significant coverage ... ". The keep arguments indeed supported "significant, independent ...", all per Wiki guidelines, rules, policies.
Yes, it would have been nice if Mr. Julian had ample coverage as Warren Buffett, Bill Moyers or even a personality as Jim Cramer. Mr. Julian currently is well recognized by his peers. If you examine the frequent collaborators of Paul Erdos, I would claim:
Few if any collaborators would meet Mr. Connor's standard for notablity
Each would exceed Wiki's standard for notability
Each is one of the most respected and recognized thinkers in their field
Mr. Connor places significant non-weight to SPAs. Just because we are not yet "part of the club", our arguments should speak for themselves. Yes, for a variety of reasons, care must be taken when evaluating the contributions or evaluations of SPAs, but Mr. Connor's condescension is unwarranted and surprising considering his always gentlemanly display of respect. I wish not to believe that Mr. Connor has an exclusionary disposition.
In summary,
I suggest as per Mr. Connor "understanding, the meaning of the word with respect to notability" is something personal
Wiki's specification of notability is supported by the article
Consensus favors keepAnn12h (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am replying to your email here. You said I kept challenging opposing voters. I would say I was discussing with them, because that is what's supposed to happen during deletion discussions; it's not a vote, and people are supposed to interact. I responded to Ann, for example, because she replied directly to my nom statement, so I thought I needed to explain myself further. More discussion took place after this (and it didn't consist of "stop badgering", 'no, justify yourself', etc.). As for the last keep, I also felt the need to respond to that. In fact, out of the five keep voters, I only replied to two of them, so I'm not sure how this can be characterised as badgering. Can I ask whether this made any impact on your closing decision? In any case, AfDs often have few participants, so one person may need to do a lot of the work. You said I made little effort with new editors. Regarding User:Chrisb3637, I consider the deletion templates to be "advice", although certainly I could have done more to explain things. If you see User talk:Ann12h, you'll see I did try to engage with a new user, and she even said to me: "Thank you for your suggestion, and I will make it a point to edit articles whenever I feel I can add value, depth and correctness", which presumably is in line with the goal of increased participation. You didn't explain your decision in your closing statement or in the email, so I think deletion review may be the next step. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Mr, Cline. There was quite a bit of irony in Mr. Connor's asking you to explain yourself when Mr. Connor, upon having been asked to comment in his talk page on his perceived editorial racism, deflected answering several times ("Do you have a registered account on this website? Why are you so interested in my edits?", etc.)
There is also some irony when Mr. Connor tries to validate his position with "I think ..." or "that's supposed ...". What Mr. Connor may think is so - is not necessarily so. And in attempting to inflict his personal opinions, Mr. Connor has been argumentative, skeptical, accusatory and abusive of logic. Yes, these characteristics may be disirable when screening articles for compliance, and within reason may serve a purpose in a discussion, but these characteristics invariably are counter productive when the objective is to make proper decisions.
I become very concerned when Mr. Connor says "supposed to" and does not support his opinion. I become very concerned when Mr. Connor is stubborn in his erroneous beliefs and cannot accept a consensus when consensus is pretty much our aim. When such behavior is isolated, judicious or honest, tolerance may be in order. But there may be a pattern.
When I had posted a response on Mr. Connor's talk page, I noticed some negative comments were posted by users, which were irrelevant to me at the time. Although they are unrelated to the current section topic, they address my concerns in the current context: closure on Mr. Julian's article so that we can move on, without constant or without vagarious challenges by Mr. Connor. Some of the user comments on Mr. Connor's talk page were as follows:
Look, an editor closed it, whether the comment was "adequate" or not isn't for you [Connor] to say. Plus, several admins agreed it was unnecessary drama since you yourself said it was "sort of resolved". So, I am going to close it and hat it again.
Hello Christopher, your continuing edits to articles regarding Jewish topics contain, from my POV, a high amount of subtle antisemitism that alarms me.
Christopher, why are you so fixated on topics like ...
Your agenda is both alarming and scary
Are you adhering to the results of the earlier discussion from when you were warned, blocked, and topic-banned?
I do not know the full story behind the preceeding (or other) issues. But I do know that, per Wiki articles, Bloomberg Television "reaches over 200 million homes worldwide", the "combined reach of CNBC and its siblings is 390 million viewers around the world", Fox "is available to 102 million households in the United States", etc. Mr. Julian regularly provides expert opinion on these and other networks. Mr. Julian has had hundreds of appearances on these networks. In spite of this, Mr. Connor cannot let go of his initial belief that Mr. Julian is not notable. Who Mr. Connor may or may not have heard of is nothing more than a reflection of Mr. Connor's exposure - or lack thereof. Also, Mr. Connor has difficulty accepting the beliefs of others. But the AfD discussions were not to be about beliefs, rather they were to be about the Wiki guidelines, rules and policies.
On his own talk page, when a consensus was in disagreement with Mr. Connor, he was dismissive by saying he did not see it as a "unanimous" consensus (???). Mr. Connor harped on notability even when it was pointed out that, per Wiki guidelines, Mr. Julian was in full conformance. Mr. Connor's interest is to satisfy Mr. Connor. Mr. Connor's apparent propensity to remain in states of denial regarding the positions of others and their interpretation of Wiki rules, guidelines and policies does not, as I recall, support the charter of the Wikipedia community.
Forgive me for the length and tenor of my comments, but I thought we were done with the AfD. There are many other activities which deserve our attention and better warrant our efforts than dwelling on Mr. Connor's questionable "shoulds". Ann12h (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, many thanks for helping with this, but a few things: no full sentences in notes section, more like bullets separated by semicolons; no period at the end of the Montana connection or notes section and first letter in those two sections needs to be UC; montana connection column doesn't need to go into career field (such as economist)-that goes in notes-montana connection should have the direct tie to montana. Also I'm not sure about the narratives at the top of the sections you added. Have you seen that in other FLs? The ones I've looked at have 2-3/4 paras at the very top and only table/list stuff below that. We'll need to look at this part more as I'm just not sure. PumpkinSkytalk 21:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC) ... What the military and pioneer narratives would be good for is if there are enough for a sub article/list, they'd go well in the lead. I'll ask about them being in a section of a main list. Year sequences are done as (1909-1919) not "from 1909-1919".PumpkinSkytalk 22:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re the narratives. As a start, if we leave them in the sections, we will have a much better idea of our inclusion criteria and ultimate organization. They may well be moved into the top of the page later. As I have thought about this List of people from Montana, it is really a pretty complex set of criteria, even for a small state--Born, Died, Lived In, Participated in a significant event. And because Montana's history from 1850 to the early 1900s (Indian wars, gold, railroads, etc.) involved a lot of people who weren't born in Montana they are treated a bit differently from the typical 20th century--I was born in Montana and became famous somewhere else members of popular culture and sports. The individual section leads, IMO, help the reader understand this complexity in a better way. Will adhere to additional advice above. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good thoughts. I'm just not sure how the narratives will go over at FLC; as I haven't seen them before. We'll have to check. Some sections, such as football will definitely warrant a sublist. FYI, the reviewers at FLC are VERY thorough, they don't miss much. Take a look at the FLC chat on my 1st and new FL List of stutterers.PumpkinSkytalk 23:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination is to build a list that really informs the readers. First and foremost, that should be the goal. After that, we can adjust to the whims of FA and make the necessary changes. But chasing FA without first building the best list possible isn't why I am doing this. Lets get all the name added, the organization and layout finalized and then worry about FA. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't MT once part of Idaho Territory? PumpkinSkytalk 23:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Washington Territory as well, but originally Montana was part of the Oregon and Dakota territories. The interim territorial adjustments are interesting but don't span much time. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Nelson Story
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Great job. Any chance of a full date of death for him? Connormah (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knievel's slot and Montana
Would Evel and his son be entertainers (where someone put them in the list) or athletes (which is what Sports Illustrated calls him)? His article calls him a daredevil and entertainer. Interesting question. Sort of like "Are billiards players athletes?" Or Sportsmen? Personally I don't consider golfers athletes. Did I just post that? I'd better run and hide ;-) PumpkinSkytalk 23:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As my German friends used to say Machs Nicth sp, makes no difference as long as a source supports whatever section they fall under. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. I suppose we don't have a category for "colorful and entertaining assholes," do we??? (grin) Montanabw(talk) 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Minor Barnstar
Hello, thank you for creating the list of molluscs of Montana List of non-marine molluscs of Montana. I made some tweaks to get the list a bit more compatible with other similar lists. I very appreciate your work and I have added it to the Portal:Gastropods. It is the first complete list of molluscs of the certain U.S. state on Wikipedia. Congratulations! Thank you. Snek01 (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8 Aug entries
Wow, you got a lot done today. Thanks! But I noticed several of the entries don't have a ref. Would you like me to help with that or do you have a plan? PumpkinSkytalk 20:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know some need references. I am on the road, so I'm getting work done without the benefit of my library. I'll go back and put in the references once I get home (If I don't get it done sooner). --Mike Cline (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John F. Yancey looks more like Wyoming. Is there something more solid than burial tying him to MT? PumpkinSkytalk 22:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if you really understand his story, he was well connected in the mining operations in Crevice Creek Montana and well connected business wise with Gardiner. (BTW what's the difference between being born in Montana and dying in Montana but never doing anything important in Montana. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People that are born somewhere are by definition native to said locale (as in automatic US citizenship) and generally grow up there for at least a few if not several years. I'll add this bit about Yancey.PumpkinSkytalk 22:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you are that close to the border, there is some room for flexibility, particularly as it is alleged that the surveyors were drunk when they set the line, else Montana might not have had AND of YNP in the state, instead of the three of five entrances we have! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 16:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't much matter where the border is, the early days of the park are inseparable from the history of southwest Montana. The major routes into the Park--Riverside (now West Yellowstone) and Gardiner are in Montana. Almost all, it not all the early concessionaires were Montanans from Bozeman, Helena and the Gallatin Valley. Gardiner and the mining at Cooke City, MT are intertwined, even though you still have to go through Wyoming in the winter to get to Cooke City.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically, through the park, yeah, but the only access to Cooke City in the winter is via Mammoth. I think the Cody entrance is closed. Montanabw(talk) 19:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the roads is nicely documented here [1]. The East entrance (Cody) wasn't open till 1903 and the south entrance (Jackson) wasn't open until 1909. For 40 years, you went through Montana to get to the park. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Governors of Montana. Below the territorial govs, you find "Wiley Scribner, acting governor, 1869–1870". In the list you find people listed for 1869-1870. Then look at his article. It is not at all clear what occurred here. Why is he listed as being an acting gov? Any idea? PumpkinSkytalk 13:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I had problems inserting Wiley Scribner into the list of Governors of Montana. I have problems with the various tables with editing. I do remember asjing one of the editors to insert the name but got no response. If someone can do this it would appreciated. My apologies for any problems-thank you-RFD (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can insert it but I can't reconcile the dates with people already in the table. There can't have been two govs/acting govs at once. PumpkinSkytalk 14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This can be removed. However, according to the Statesman almanac Scribner served as acting Governor of Montana Territory when Ashley left the territory-Scribner was secretary of Montana Territory at the time. Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it now. I'll update the table when I do that part of the list. Thanks. PumpkinSkytalk 15:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found many of the United States territorial officers to be interesting. John Catlin was one of them. He served in the Wisconsin Territorial Legislature and was the last Wisconsin Territorial Secretary. When Wisconsin was admitted to the union in 1848, Congress neglected to create the Minnesota Territory so part of Wisconsin Territory that was not included in the new state of Wisconsin remained Wisconsin Territory. Catlin takes the Wisconsin Territory seal with him to what is now Stillwater, Minnesota and calls a special election to fill the vacant Congressional Wisconsin Territorial Delegate seat vacanted by Henry Dodge who was elected to the US Senate seat from the new state of Wisconsin. Henry Hastings Sibley is elected and after some debate Congress votes to seat Sibley. Sibley eventually sponsers legislation to organize the new Minnesota Territory and becomes the first Governor of the new state of Minnesota in 1858. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy if I could figure a non-joke series of dates of all those acting govs from the early days. With all the legislatures closing, vigilantes, govs leaving to go back east, GEEZ!PumpkinSkytalk 00:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Montana
Very outstanding effort...you are supposed to be retired ya know! Best wishes.--MONGO 03:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MT MOH recipients
I have added a Medal of Honor section. I'll be adding all 8 recipients from MT. I thought you may be interested since you're a AF person.PumpkinSkytalk 14:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
PS I've got some input, but can't edit the FA page with my IPAD. Am flying home from Denver and should be able to make some comments in a couple of hours. I am confused by the "athletes" comment since the two most prominent british sportspeople I can think of Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams are refered to as athletes in their article. Mike Cline (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about those two guys.PumpkinSkytalk 22:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Small mission
Mike me laddie, can you whip up a quick stub on Scratchgravel Hills]? This per the fact that I have a redlink --but also a photo -- at Lake Helena. I suck at all the geocoding and sourcing, you can do it way quicker than I. That said, am heading to YNP this weekend via the Bozone and US 191, probably returning via Paradise Valley, will have camera, so if you need an image shot, put in your requests now. Montanabw(talk) 17:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added info and refs to this. There's probably enough info in the refs to make this a dyk if someone is interested.PumpkinSkytalk 16:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This someone has some other priorities, but could provide a better photo than this someone previously took at a later date (grin)... Montanabw(talk) 04:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fairbury
Good morning, Mike. I am trying to get the hang of how to communicate with you via talk pages, as you suggested. I got you message on my talk page and it makes sense that this be the preferred way that we communicate as I begin to learn how to navigate Wikipedia as an editor.Fairbury (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mystery
Please solve this mystery if you can...
On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.
Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.
You emailed me and I replied. It was refused and you made me waste time going through a process of filling in a form, which when I submitted it, said my message was no longer available. Sorry, I am not going to waste anymore time pandering to your obsession about spam. If you are using wikipedia email, you should be totally open to replies to it. --Bduke(Discussion) 00:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to email you, but I don't know how. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mike Cline. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
I'd like to do an article on the Yogo sapphire. Do you have or can you get one or more free images of them? I can't find any. I have, or perhaps used to have, a Yogo mounted in white gold, but I'll be darned if I can find it. PumpkinSkytalk 22:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is in my Sandbox2. I'm essentially done with web refs and now working my way through the Voynick book on Yogos that I have. I guess another week, so there's still time to obtain a photo or two. PumpkinSkytalk 01:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free
files in your user space
Hey there Mike Cline, thank you for your contributions! I am a
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
).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a
helpme
}}
template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Hi. I have endeavoured to rescue an article I remembered having viewed six months ago and could not find back on wikipedia. It had been considered OR although it was very well third-party sourced to me. Care to give your opinion on it? Here is the ongoing deletion review. Cheers --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a comment about this request has been made by another editor, at that page. I think they should have informed you, but as they did not, I'm letting you know. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of important publications in biology has been reinstated and already people are discussing deletion. Mostly it's the usual suspects, but also Crusio (talk) has been weighing in, which worries me a bit. Can you have a look at this page? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
My moves
Mike, once I noticed that Curb Chain had moved your Wikiproject into article space, I moved a template from your space to make it functional. I hope that is o.k. - I know that under normal circumstances it would not be kosher. If you like, I could give you a hand with completing the activation of this project. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
May want to watchlist the Missoula article, I just removed the same sort of claim from there. Montanabw(talk) 21:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fun thing
Mike, I was looking over a project of PSky's and in passing noted a glaring omission in wikipedia articles: The best-known of the good trout streams west of the divide, Rock Creek. Aside from the usual topo maps, three quick sites: [2],[3], [4] . I think there is also a Rock Creek by Red Lodge and possibly another up by Wolf Point. But upon checking the disambiguation of
Testicle Festival", kind of the opposite of a trout fishing experience, but notable in its own way. Montanabw(talk) 03:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
May want to do your geographic magic on two new articles by a nice, friendly new user that used the Article Wizard. I approved them and did a little cleanup, but I'm not great on the coordinates and infobox stuff. May want to look them over: Lost Creek State Park and Thompson Falls State Park
Xixabangma
Thank you for closing the renaming discussion at
Talk:Xixabangma
. There was one residual issue that I wanted to consult with an admin: I'm hoping you are willing to give your opinion, as a neutral third party.
Originally,
Xixabangma
.
This has left hard feelings amongst some of the editors. If MediaWiki had allowed Racerx11 to revert, the discussion would have closed with no consensus at
Xixabangma
does seem unfair, though.
What do you think? I'm 10% tempted to move it to
Shisha Pangma, but I certainly don't want to start an edit war. —hike395 (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I appreciate the difficulty of your position, and thank you for your service, Mike, but I think you really blew it on this case. Yu Hai is running roughshod over these mountain names and, with or without intention, has figured out a way to get his way, despite consensus. Where you see no consensus, I see one editor, warping the rules to get his way, dominating the discussion, presenting little to no evidence, ignoring the good faith of other editors, etc... - and constantly declaring there is no consensus when except for Yu Hai, there clearly is. I believe Yu Hai acts in good faith, but is poorly acculturated to the wikipedia consensus society. Most wikipedians, myself included, have little to no idea what to do when players act poorly, and are easily wiki-lawyered out of the way. Having a moderator/mediator/admin come in and put their stamp of approval on the actions of a disruptive editor and belligerent talk-page consensus denier does not increase us peon's faith in wikipedia processes. Ratagonia (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have a new message at Hike395's talk page.
rainbow trout
hello mike,
thanks for heads up. have removed all references as you requested.
Irideus (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
irideus[reply]
Dry Cottonwood Creek
Can you create an article on this too? PumpkinSkytalk 00:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have to lure Mike with a trout -- a real one, not a wikitrout! Are there fish there?? (grin) Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mike Cline. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
ygm
}} template.
Gompa (another title change)
Hi Mike,
Sorry to bother you again (I'm one of the editors involved in the Sishapangma issue). I have just noticed that we can see all contributions from a user by clicking the "contribs" tag, and have found dozens and dozens of very controversial edits by user 虞海 with whom some could think I am a bit in conflict... :)
I have reverted some of the most obvious abuses, and have tried to move back the page
Goinba
to its original name Gompa. Gompas are buddhist monasteries/nunneries found in China (Tibet), Nepal, India, Bhutan. The name Goinpa (as Xixibangma) is not used in English, but in the Tibetan romanisation form used only in China. Nobody outside China, and in particular in Nepal, India and Bhutan where many Gompa can be found, will understand the word Goinpa.
I tried to change back the name (using the small sign on the top of the page), but was afraid to make a mistake that could block the page. Is it OK for me to try, or could you move back the page to its original title? Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for having helped about the Gompa page. Your help is appreciated.--Pseudois (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudois, I stalk Mike's talk page, and while I do not regularly edit Buddhism articles nor am I a Buddhist, I happen to share your concerns on this issue (see my user box overload on my user page), so if you ever need a non-admin hand in the future, (moral support or page watchlisting) let me know. Montanabw(talk) 17:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also extending my thanks on the Gompa move. Well done.--Racerx11 (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you on Talk page, is there an Admin FAQ board? (it's a simple q. I'm just wondering if a non-Admin can close a merge discussion he started). In ictu oculi (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answer on my page. FWIW I'm not an admin, neither is the user who I've just seen close a merge discussion he started, nor do I wish to object. I was just informing myself of WP practice. Thanks again. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your old fly fishing grounds
See File:RubyRiver.jpg, I know you've done what this shows, fly fishing on the Ruby. I've moved to commons, can you delete the en wiki copy? Tks. PumpkinSkytalk 15:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Old issue with arising from Bozeman now at Missoula article. See history of Missoula, Montana. Nuff said. I reverted, your turn. I'm tired. Montanabw(talk) 04:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Genesis article
Hi, thank you for taking the time to give me advice on how to become involved in Wikipedia. To be honest I often read the talk pages on the articles and I have been put off from contributing because of some of the things that have went on. The Genesis article is a case in point, I arrived at the discussion after it had been concluded and I made a suggestion that a compromise title should be created. I have been called a sock-puppet by someone, accused of insulting another editor when I said that I wasn't and it's not fair to just dismiss a new person like that. I ended the conversations last night by just sort of trying to draw a line under it all and apologising. Today someone else on that page has called me a troll and said I shouldn't contribute essentially. Could you intervene and just remind some of these people that bad faith is not acceptable? I have taken on board what you said, it just not fair that someone who is new and has a different opinion is called both a sock-puppet, a troll and what they have to say is dismissed. Bobert902101 (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding job on the advice you gave. I even took one of the lines for my favorite quotations... User:Born2cycle#Other. --Born2cycle 18:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category sorting
Just a reminder that DEFAULTSORT is a
magic word
, not a template, and uses a colon, not a pipe. e.g. {{DEFAULTSORT:Holdstock, Robert}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|Holdstock, Robert}}
—Paul A (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ANI's
Mike, I was hoping to keep the second ANI focussed on the RfC itself, and your statement is more in line with your request to block Curb Chain. I'd appreciate it if you would move your timeline to the other RfC. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to find that my ANI about Curb Chain got archived because it had lain dormant for 24 hours. I'm not sure whether it is worth the bother of reinstating it. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was as well, but my inclination is to take the high road and let it lie. The Rfc is not going anywhere as far as I can tell, so its not actually disruptive at this point. If curb does nothing further along these lines, then OK. If he starts something else, then the ANI thread can always be resurrected. I am traveling every week until the middle of december and would rather spend my WP time on productive content work. Keep at it, i really like the enhancements you are bringing to the project. Thanks Mike Cline (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IPAD+Airplane+turbulance=inadvertant rollback. Happens to me at least once a week when I am working on WP with the IPAD. OOps. --Mike Cline (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A reason to prefer the Mac Book Air! RockMagnetist (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of which are superior to anything involving the illustrious Mr. Gates! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inadvertant rollbacks are preferable to premature &$?!'*^%#. Trolls. a--Mike Cline (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New New World Order userfication
It looks like we've been duped regarding the userfication of New New World Order. After GrandPhilliesFan wasted our time on the DRV and canvassed Jimbo, he didn't even touch the article during the three weeks since you've userfied it to his page. I suspect the whole purpose was to have it undeleted so he can reference it in his thesis or suchlike, assuming the reviewers wouldn't notice it's in the user namespace (or more likely, since GrandPhilliesFan doesn't realize the difference between the two namespaces).
I'll give him a chance to respond, but absent a valid reason, I suggest we undo the move and re-delete per the original AfD and subsequent DRV. Owen×☎ 15:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please browse through them and let me know what you think. All observations are welcome. The Transhumanist 00:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting RMs
Hi Mike. Just letting you know that to relist RMs you have to make a comment with a timestamp inside the original nomination like this. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
William Crooke bib
Why not be bold and just do it? I created the article, practically no-one else looks at it ... and I'm happy either way. It does have a genuine long-term use, and will be expanded, but the chances of anyone other than me adding to it are minimal, IMO. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Margaret Theresa
Hello! The move discussion at
Talk:Margarita Teresa of Spain has been open for 7 days already. The request has not been opposed so I suppose the article should have been moved. Now that it has been relisted, shall I have to wait another 7 days? Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi. I have left you a response on my talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dunsany
I do not care for being reverted. Had you asked, I would have explained that I had other reasons to move that particular page, now explained on the talk page. But I will find another talk page for a test case. JCScaliger (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe in consensus, then you should abandon this one-man renaming project. The response you got at Talk:List of works by Bede#Requested move should be sufficient to show that the appeal to consistency, against naturalness and precision, is not consensus; when other editors notice, they object. JCScaliger (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as a contest as you apparently do. The BEDE RM did'n't generate concensus. 2 or 3 other RMs did. Every article stands on its own merits. --Mike Cline (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones have generated active consensus, and not simply been unopposed? It would be not be surprising if nobody noticed them; I did only by chance. JCScaliger (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not a contest, merely a disagreement. I have been firm here because you were uncivil - and because you have ignored the existence of disagreement before. JCScaliger (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will we finished the discussion with a poll?
Hello Mike,
I don't like polling, but if there must be one, it's ok. Here, what I worried about is:
In previous discussion, I completely obey the Wikipedia:Canvassing rule and have never notify anyone to participate with me, but they notified many people to join, majority of whom are interested in mountainering, few are interested in Tibet, and none are interested in overall Chinese culture. If there will not be a poll, I may accept it reluctantly (actually I reluctantly accept many times in other move discussions); however, if there will be a poll, I don't think I should accept it. I think I may (suppose they notified mountainering participators and Tibetan language participators):
Notify people who are interested in Tibetan culture;
Notify who are interested in overall Chinese culture;
Are these ok? Can I do these? Or what should I do? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍ 11:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the previous notification is violate the non-partisan rule (WP:CANVAS) and should be balanced by notify some others in.
On one hand, we should notify same amount of Tibetan culture and overall Chinese region participators.
On the other hand, more native people who also speak English language should join. Among the previous discussion most (I think all but me) are westerners, which also violate the non-partisan rule.
I will, for sure, notify people (if must), in a neutral way, just like this.
Have an auspicious (吉祥) day! ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍ 11:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Help/advice needed
Hi!
Sorry to bother you again.
I'm sorry if my answering practice has been incorrect on the Shishapangma talk page, but lacking experience on how to reply in talk page, I actually used a similar way of doing (making insertions after clearly stating: Inserted) of user 虞海, see for example
this chapter
(I don't know either what the template saveto means, this was also added later by user 虞海). I understand that interrupting may render the reading more difficult, but my intention was to address specifically each point, so rather to make the reading more easy in this particular case. I have now seen that the proper way would be to use the template "interrupted", and have edited accordingly a posteriori. Anyway, all my additions were signed since the beginning.
In ABSOLUTELY NO CASE I have been "deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Xixabangma, is considered bad practice", but this is the kind of "advice/warning" I have received on my talk page (section November 2011). I consider this as an attempt to intimidate me or put some doubts on my credibility in the eyes of other editors who would visit my talk page. Is it legitimate to delete the comment, or have it deleted by some admins? Thanks for any suggestion.--Pseudois (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
T:DYK/Q. Yogo sapphire is in queue 1 and should appear as the lead dyk with photo at 11am today, eastern US time. I think this is the best new article I've ever worked on and truly appreciate all the help. PumpkinSkytalk 10:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Renames
Mike, I see that you have started motions to rename various articles. I agree with your preferred naming scheme, but it seems unwise to be making these proposals so soon after the debacle with Curb Chain. It is just adding fodder to the critics of WikiProject Bibliographies who think we want to impose our fledgling standards on everyone. I think it would be much better to work on the content of articles (and on the guidelines), and only propose renaming articles after establishing our bona fides. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but the exercise did bring out some good ideas that will inform us down the road. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it did. In fact, it might be worth communicating the outcome of those discussions on the pages where a move is still being discussed. I appreciate your efforts in tagging all those articles, by the way. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lubomir Visnovsky
Concerning your “No Consensus” close on the
WP:COMMONNAME, with the Support side providing overwhelming evidence of reliable sources to support the policy-based Requested Move. The Oppose side quoted no established policy at all to oppose the move, instead arguing broad POV concepts of using the “correct” non-English name for biographies. Please enlighten me on exactly what established policy the opposed side based their “good case” upon, because I just don't see it. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
OK, I've listed this for GA. It's the only one in it's category. Any help would be appreciated. We should look at its current state with GA-level in mind. I don't have any experience to speak of at this level, so help would be great. I think we need to expand the lead. PumpkinSkytalk 20:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mike Cline. You have new messages at Dolovis's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Mike...the Wyoming article has been having a rash of unrelated items copy and pasted from other articles apparently about child obesity or juvenile delinquency etc...could I get you to watchlist that page and put semi-protection up on it...also, these vandals (probably the same kid) is just creating throw away accounts so they can be blocked...I may submit a checkuser to see if it all the same IP as I bet it is...if you're not interested, I can ask another admin.MONGO 17:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a couple of weeks and then restore it to unprotected. This article doesn't seem to have such persistent vandalism and some edits from IP's have been constructive in the past. Back in the stone ages of Wikipedia when I was an admin whenever a page was semi-protected, we had to slap templates on the article and list the page at a board somewhere so other admins could evaluate our action...hopefully this is no longer the case now. Thanks again. MONGO 12:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category removal
Hi. Please advise further on why you recently removed
List of bridge books is within its scope. Thanks and regards. BTW, good job on all that fishing stuff - the more people that stay off the golf course the happier I am - I'm sure the reverse is true for you! Newwhist (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Got your reply and am in agreement. Newwhist (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Teamwork barnstar
The Teamwork Barnstar
For all the great work in getting Yogo sapphire to Good Article, my first. Thanks to users Dreadstar, Montanabw, Tim1965, Mike Cline, and Gerda Arendt! PumpkinSkytalk 01:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
step-before-RM
Mike, thanks for closing the RM on
Talk:The Mitzvah of sanctifying the Kohen, you're absolutely correct (sorry) that something more in accordance with WP:EN and WP:RS is not sufficient for RM, and not even close to being specific enough for RM. What do you think is the best uninvolved WP space to ask for input into narrowing down vague/general concern about an existing article title into something MOS-compliant that can be proposed as a RM? I was thinking RFC might be a neutral place? Or is there a WP space which is more appropriate to attract uninvolved/neutral 1-step-before-RM discussion? Very best regards, and thanks for your time. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Mike, many many thanks - that explanation was far more than I expected. I hope you'll be able to cut and paste/recycle it if someone asks the same question again. I was thinking of a general RfC where any/many WP:titles which are not yet are RM stage could be posted (since titling policy and WP:UE seems to be recurrent), and the space re-used? Sorry if this is not clear/focussed enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of some major changes and additions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. I did this for the most part because I linked the project advice section at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Bibliographies and wanted to make sure the whole page was inline and linked to current policy. This should avoid any objects to the link on the guideline page because its all reflective of our overall guidelines. Having a link from a guideline page gets much scrutiny. I think no one should reject any project "recommendation " because of the neutral-policy based wording. Plus lets face-it its very informative overall. Cant belive we have never meet before now ..have we?Moxy (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great work and good to have you on board. I see momentum building here. Send me an email at your convienience. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is ok, but I have re-listed the articles 5 O'Clock and 5 O'clock (song) with a move proposal together at 5 O'clock (song)'s talk page here: Talk:5 O'clock (song)#Requested move 2. I asked on said talk page whether or not I should do so and waited 24 hrs with no response so I just went ahead and did it. There is also new evidence to consider regarding why they should be moved and my move proposal involves slightly different proposed names then others have proposed before. I hope that this helps make things clearer for everyone and not more confusing :-)
I am letting all the editors who were involved in recent discussions know.
Please see the talk page for more info.
Thanks, MsBatfish (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Xixabangma poll results
Hello. I have decided to reply here first in attempt to avoid some confusion.
I think your numbers are correct assuming you counted Wikimedes as a support Shishapangma vote. Which brings me to my first point. It may be better to list each of the user names under each vote choice like someone did before in a previous attempt at a consensus. That way each editor will see their name and their vote and they will know they were counted. Here is something like it looked before the last time we did a tally of votes:
Shishapangma
*Kauffner
*Wikimedes
*Ratagonia
*Pseudois
Weak Shishapangma
*Nat Krause
*hike395
Neutral
*Racerx11
Xixabangma
*Yu Hai
*Quigley
It may have been laid out differently at the time but these were the positions a few weeks ago which brings me to my next point. A couple of the editors above did not vote this time around (at least Kauffner and Quigley I think), so may we count their previous positions above as their current vote or just ignore those positions from a few weeks ago and not represent those editors as voting at all?
Thanks for all your help.--Racerx11 (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And of course now that someone attempted the move, you (or another admin) will have to fix the mess.--Racerx11 (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
If you Google the word notability and look for recent references, it appears that the Wikipedia editors are re-defining the word from the hopelessly vague ideas of fame, infamy, oddity, etc. to the process done here namely to evaluate what's been published about the topic in a reliable source. The dictionary entry of the future for notability might be "the tests for inclusion of a topic as Wikipedia article." patsw (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Big surprise to me. DYK is on my watchlist, so it had to be an inadvertant undo or rollback on my ipad touch screen that i did not catch. Sorry.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. 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) 10:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain
I noticed that you move-protected B'rov am hadrat melech. Why did you do that? The moves were made about three weeks ago, and ever since I warned editors not to make any unilateral moves (so to say), all was quit. I do not think that anybody would move it of his/her own accord, now that the discussion has been closed as "no consensus". Please explain why you deemed it necessary to move-protect this page nevertheless. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally uninvolved having just learned about this article from this comment. It seems to me that the reason Mike move protected the article was stated quite clear in his closing statement - he wants to encourage all those involved to focus on improving the article, especially the sourcing. No one should be moving the article with an RM discussion anyway. Frankly, your questioning such an innocuous event suggests he was right to do so. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My question only suggests that I do not find that necessary, and a possible lack of confidence in the good sense of the editors involved. Which is the same you (Born2cycle) display. Debresser (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current title does no harm to WP, the current state of the article does. Editors spent a lot of energy in this discussion, including a lot of sourcing, yet the article itself has not benefited substantially from that energy. FIX the article folks. Move protected for 30 days. Mike Cline (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Mike, thanks for your close and comment. I couldn't agree more with the assessment, but attempts to restore deleted academic sources on this article would only invite more personal attacks, and having been stalked there once I personally intend to leave the "article" in the lousy state it is. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, sorry I only just saw your personal message of 19 Dec, you're absolutely right of course RMs are sensitive, and thank you very much for good advice. Very best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
so more discussion could occur? I, for one, did not get to participate, and I'm sure others would like to weigh in. I think an RFC is in order, because the underlying issue here is general: is additional information in the title like this, which is not necessary for disambiguation, appropriate to be there.
Strange action, I must say. The RM was open for more than two weeks, including a re-listing. Is B2C granted special privileges in this kind of matter? I note a personal aspect to his latest post there. Could you explain, please? It looks like agitation until you get what you want: golden opportunity for
canvassing, if you ask me—causing a fuss to get people of your own hue in there. Tony(talk) 10:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The issue was raised (not by me) at WT:Article titles, and this brought it my attention, and, apparently, to others. It was a specific example of the issue we were discussing there. I wanted to comment, so I asked the closing admin to revert his own close to allow discussion to continue. Since it was re-opened less than 24 hours ago, nine additional people have chimed in. The alternative was to start a new RM discussion, but re-opening the just-closed one seemed to make more sense. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
December 2011
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jay E. Adams bibliography, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. If you had read this template, instead of simply deleting it, you would have noticed that redirection is explicitly listed as a remedy for lack of notability, rendering this edit summary completely unfounded. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hrafn, I think you should familarize yourself with
WP:NOTESAL. This article is a bibliography and subject to the notability standard for lists, not Books. --Mike Cline (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Mike: There is not valid parameter for 'Lists', so 'Books' was the closest one that does exist. If you thought that this was inappropriate, then the thing to do is to remove the parameter, not the entire template. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re Imaginary unit RM
Yea, I looked at that a few days ago. I believe that it is going to be no consensus. But I'll wait and see if anyone jumps in. BTW, any interest in my proposal for a subpage at RM to have discussions on how to close the difficult RMs? I made it a while ago, but I suspect you might see the wisdom and folly in the suggestion after some of the closes you did. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frohliche Weinachten und Gluckliches neues Jahr
Christbaumschmuck an einer Nordmanntanne (fotografiert in Baden-Wurttemberg, Deutschland)
Photo from Baden_Wurttemberg, Germany.PumpkinSkytalk 12:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited
Amphibians and reptiles of Olympic National Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dominik Halmosi
et al
Hello Mike (sorry to bring this up again)
I notice you closed these two RM’s (and, fairly even-handedly refused both of them) I’ve been somewhat frustrated by the whole diacritic/no-diacritic dispute (hence not being around much recently). I supported the first move (and would have opposed the second) as I feel policy/guidelines are fairly emphatic that we follow English language usage (ie if a word is used in English with a diacritic in it, we use it, and if not, we don’t (and if English usage is ambivalent we follow ENGVAR and stick with the way it was first written)
So I was puzzled by your comment “Everyone made a good case based on policy and guidelines” as I really can’t see what the policy-based argument is for adding them when not supported by use in English sources ( I appreciate there’s a "Correctness" argument, and that those in favour are pretty insistent about it: I’m not sure that over-rides the guidelines we have, or makes it right) I see Dolovis already asked you this, and I’ve read your reply to him, but I have to say I’m none the wiser; can you give me an idea what you had in mind by that?
You also said that RM wasn’t the forum ("issues involved in this discussion need resolution before requesting moves like this"); can you suggest what the appropriate forum would be? It seems to have been discussed for years, all over the place, and is no nearer an agreement. There also seems to be (on one side) no willingness to adhere to the guidelines we have on the subject, and (on the other) no appetite for changing the guidelines to allow for “natural” diacritic use. And there doesn’t seem to be any possibility/likelihood of a compromise.
You also said there’s no consensus on the subject, and that’s certainly true; what usually happens when two parties can’t agree, and end up being disruptive in the process? Is there a facility for an impartial third party to make a final judgement? To say to one side or the other: “you’re wrong, they’re right, get used to it”? Swanny18 (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
I’m getting the impression this diacritic row is intractable, as it’s resolution ( or lack, thereof) is bound up in the way WP runs. I’ve thought at times that WP is a fine way to get people of different viewpoints to agree on something (and maybe that’s one of its major pluses) but the whole thing founders a bit when two groups won’t. But like you say, it’s difficult to say that it does any actual harm, in the main. (I sometimes have to stop and tell myself, “it’s only a hobby!”)
I’ve noticed the bias towards the status quo, and reluctance to change if there is no consensus for it, but I’ve often felt that’s no bad thing, generally; so I shouldn’t be too surprised (though it's a little galling when pages have been moved in the past, without any discussion (or even explanation, sometimes) then they have to go to RM to be put back).
Thanks for the RFC suggestion; I’ll have to think a bit about what it is I actually want (But that's no bad thing, either!) Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yarlung Tsangpo River
This discussion has moved to Talk:Yarlung Tsangpo River, Please continue it there
Hi Mike,
Would it be possible to help move back "
talk page
(discussion closed on 9 May 2009, but the title was changed again on 19 July and 5 August of the same year?
I tried to move it back myself, but it wasn't possible for technical reasons and the help of an admin is requested. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Had to fix a dozen double redirects after the move. I've move protected the article for 30 days just in case. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudo was mentioning an outdated discussion result to you
The discussion Pseudo mentioned was an outdated one - the Yarlung Zangbo was even once moved to
Yarlung Zangbo River) until new consensus reached. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍ 08:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Please not like that 虞海! You are once again trying to present my argumentation in a totally different light as it is in reality, and your own argumentation does not stand a rapid analysis. Here two points:
You said that I mentioned an outdated discussion. I wrote clearly to Mike that "discussion closed on 9 May 2009, but the title was changed again on 19 July and 5 August of the same year". There was no other discussion after the 9 May 2009 to justify the changes made on 19 July and 5 August (the latest by you), and no consensus met. How can this be outdated?
Your wrote that the last consensus was reached on 22 November and preferred the term "Yarlung Zangbo". That's simply false, or it is me who is not able to find where this discussion took place. Can you please enlighten me? According to what I found, a now banned editor (User:TrueColour) with a very conflicting edit history (User talk:TrueColour) made a requested move (uncontroversial request) on 21 November at 22:37 to move from "Yarlung Zangbo (river)" to "Yarlung Zangbo River" and a well intentioned admin (User:Anthony Appleyard) made the move a few hours later (22 November at 05:08), as, indeed, the point was about the use of the "(..)" around the word river. This had nothing to do with the discussion between Tsangpo and Zangbo, and did not require consensus or discussion.
The fact is that your move on 5 August 2009 was done in total disregard to the talk page. It either went undetected, or the fact is that you are simply demotivating good faith and constructive editors, who are losing huge amount of time to revert your unconstructive edits or discuss your biaised comments as I have to do now. I also noticed during the Sishapangma discussion that you have continued doing controversial edits of similar nature on other pages while the other editors were patiently waiting for the end of the discussion. Is this a deliberate tactical behavior of yours? Deliberate or not, this is not serving the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project, and I have come to the conclusion that you may not understand the true meaning of the term.--Pseudois (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done This was just a simple edit of the Tingkye page. You could have handled it. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and sorry... I'm still a beginner... :) BTW, I just nominated an article for deletion (lack of notability, commercial), I hope I handled it technically correctly.--Pseudois (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yogo pre-FAC review
We have someone looking at this for FAC preparation. Casliber is commenting on the article talk page. Help addressing his comments and any FAC comments once we get it there would be appreciated. PumpkinSkytalk 12:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Mike Cline, thank you for your contributions! I am a 
Hello. You have a new message at Hike395's talk page.
Done I have moved Shisha pangma to Shishapangma. The previous contents of Shishapangma and Talk:Shishapangma were redirects and nothing else. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)]
