User talk:Michipedian/Archive 2

Archive 2: August 2013 – July 2017.
 * Note: During this time, I began to use the username Michipedian, which is my permanent username. For a brief period during this time, however, I switched my username to Sonĝanto, but I later changed it back to Michipedian.

Your submission at AfC Michigan Urban Farming Initiative was accepted
 Michigan Urban Farming Initiative, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Zach Vega ( talk to me ) 00:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Russian-American
I agree that Ayn Rand should use this adjective, if only because Objectivism (Ayn Rand) does, and I've seen similar things on other biographies. Just be careful about giving the false appearance of edit-warring, especially on that article. If you visit my talk page, you'll find that Ayn Rand a scorched battlefield with ongoing sanctions far and above the usual WP:3RR available to any admin who chooses to apply them.

The way to avoid the false appearance of edit-warring is to let the wrong version stay, bring up the issue on the talk page, and make a clear case for your edit. Unless the feedback has some sort of persuasive argument (like a specific rule that says we can't call her Russian-American), you can then restore the preferred version. Even then, if it's reverted back, don't take the bait. Just talk it over, be firm, and expect to occasionally lose even if you're entirely right. Wikipedia is a very bad place for those who need immediate gratification.

Please take this as helpful advice, not any sort of warning. You did nothing wrong, I just want to make sure nobody gets an impression to the contrary. MilesMoney (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The term "Russian American" is read by most people in the US at least as someone born in America of Russian heritage. It is an ambiguous term, and that's why it is incorrect to use these terms in the lead sentence (cf WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, an argument only for cleaning up the "other stuff"). WP:OPENPARA was written to restrict the opening sentence to a single nationality, that which the subject held at the time they acheived notability. Her Russian birth is mentioned two or there sentences later. Move that sentence up if you like, but don't use an ambuigous term that violates the spirit of WP:OPENPARA. Or propose a wording on the talk page that uses wording other than "Russian American", which simply isn't true given the primary American reading of the term. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * MilesMoney, thank you for the advice. I will keep that in mind going forward.
 * Yworo, I understand what you are saying, but I think you are overstating your case a bit. Regardless, I don't care that much about it. The intro to Ayn Rand read "Russian-American" for a very long time until someone recently changed it. Given all the controversy behind the Ayn Rand intro lately, I was simply reverting it to how it was before, since the change did not seem helpful. I think "Russian-born American" would be clearer, but I'm fine with it as it is now. In the future, please provide citations to your claims if you are going to correct users so assuredly. (I don't necessarily agree with your assertion of the common association with that term. Besides, other WP articles use that terminology, e.g., Jim Carrey.) Michipedian (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The use of Country-born Country is also discouraged, as it discounts their citizenship in their country of birth, making the birth seem accidental or perhaps to citizens of another country traveling abroard. I know what WP:OPENPARA is trying to accomplish, despite its poor wording, as I participated in writing it, and its intent can be verified by perusing the corresponding talk page. A clear second sentence is the usual solution on most articles where these issues of phrasing are taken seriously. Or, if the citizenship was dual, the simple use of the word "and". Yworo (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I responded on the Talk:Ayn Rand page. Michipedian (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Scope and title for Bisexuality in the Arab world
During the recent AfD for Bisexuality in the Arab world (closed as 'keep') you will either have seen opinions expressed to expand the scope of the article, or voiced that opinion yourself. I am placing this notice on the talk pages of all who expressed an opinion of whatever type in that deletion discussion to invite you to participate in a discussion on article scope and title at Talk:Bisexuality in the Arab world. You are cordially invited to participate. By posting this message I am not seeking to influence your opinion one way or another. Fiddle  Faddle  10:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Omega
The link to the Gramblingite still works for me. Also, you might consider simply marking something like that as a dead link or trying to find an archive.org link for it, (it is there as well at https://web.archive.org/web/20120425083031/http://www.thegramblinite.com/features/a-phi-q-crowned-champs-again-1.22218 )Naraht (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah I was mistaken. Not sure what happened there. Thanks for pointing that out, and sorry for any inconvenience. Michipedian (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No Problem. Carry on. :)Naraht (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michigan Urban Farming Initiative


The article Michigan Urban Farming Initiative has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not notable:seems to operate one local site only.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, the Michigan Urban Farming Initiative's main focus is one site. But why does this make them not notable? They have received a significant amount of media coverage. I added some more articles to verify this. I don't see anything in WP:N that says an organization must span a geographical region to be considered notable. Additionally, they do have another site in a suburb and operate a club at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. (Working on trying to find a citation for this.) Michipedian (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

bold aliases and acronyms
I notice you have been adjusting the acronyms of many institutions. In particular you added bolding of EOU in the Eastern Oregon University article. According to the Manual of Style, MOS:BOLD is to be used sparingly and only in specific circumstances. While I agree it makes some sense to render EOU in this way, it is not the article title, nor is there a primary link to it. EOU is only a relatively uncommon synonym mostly used by college related people in the area. —EncMstr (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * EncMstr, according to MOS:BOLDSYN, parenthetical acronyms in the lead sentence should always be in boldface. If an acronym is not common enough to be in boldface, it should not be in the lead sentence. Michipedian (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't notice this until now. Not sure why.
 * I didn't know about BOLDSYN until now. Thanks for pointing it out and sorry for the trouble.  —EncMstr (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. Michipedian (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Plymouth Christian Academy
Hi, I'm Libby norman. Michipedian, thanks for creating Plymouth Christian Academy!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for your article on Plymouth Christian Academy. This currently doesn't have any reliable third party references. Please see the guidance at WP:NSCHOOL as it would be a good idea to provide something to justify inclusion. Libby norman (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Libby norman (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

World Map question
Sonĝanto: I may have used either Inkscape or just plain editing the text file of the SVG in any text editor (Notepad, for example). Probably, since I was new to SVG at the time (and still am), I merely just grouped all the disparate parts of a country (like islands and exclaves) in Inkscape and "grouped" them together under one tag, then had the Wikipedia community clean up the superfluous code that Inkscape creates. (I've at least since learned how to group together using a text editor). I also want to stress that the initial SVG map was done by en:User:Brianski and he deserves *way* more recognition than he has been getting for his work. All I did, and I want to stress this for people, is take Brianski's original SVG and grouping disparate parts together, fixing the error I perceived that was holding the map back from being really useable. If you want to know how Brianski made the original SVG file, you'd have to ask him (and please do, and give him some love for creating the darned thing originally!) I still am no good at creating new SVG files, even when the world map needs updating, like having South Sudan added, for example, I can't do that, and rely on Wikipedians much better than me to do it. --Canuckguy (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

October 2016 Rob Portman deletions
Can you please weigh-in on the Rob Portman October 2016 deleted material?--Republicsisterhood (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mirth Provisions


A tag has been placed on Mirth Provisions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

May 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Michael Glatze, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Legal status of Salvia divinorum in the United States
Suggest relisting as I said there. Andrewa (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Slomin's for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Slomin's is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Slomin's until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)