User talk:Mike Cline/Archive 10

WP:Today's featured article/January 23, 2015
Hi Mike. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the text down to about 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? Also, one question: the lead says "native to cold-water tributaries of the Pacific Ocean in Asia and North America", but it also says "outside their native range in the U.S., Southern Europe, Australia and South America" ... so is Southern Europe part of their native range or not? - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elk Hair Caddis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grayling. 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) 09:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

MSU WVS
Hey Mike,

I'm hearing great things from MSU about your work. They are really thrilled. I'm wondering if you have or could set up an onwiki subpage that lists and links to the articles you have created/improved under the WVS position. That would help us show off what is possible with these types of partnerships. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Doh. User:Mike_Cline/Wikipedia_visiting_scholar/contributions. :) Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 19 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Adams (dry fly) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=643212234 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F643212234%7CAdams (dry fly)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Rainbow trout
It is nice to see "Rainbow trout" on the main page. Congratulations and thank you! Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Seconded...nice looking article and much more interesting than some of the more recent main page FAs.--MONGO 04:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A wonderful article. I enjoyed reading it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  precious  again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Two TFAs out of WP Montana members in a single week! Wow!  (Neither about Montana specifically, but still).  Fun to see this one.   Montanabw (talk)  09:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Pics
Some very nice photos on Bleu Horses Mike. Thank you. — Ched : ?  02:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And the DYK nom is up, I think the bot will ping me if any problems, but I also have this page watchlisted. Check my added material to see if it's OK, and I did list myself as second creator, hope that was OK... Montanabw (talk)  05:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Dolan
Found more photos of Dolan's work on Commons, so created Jim Dolan (sculptor). Ya inspired me! Feel free to add to article! Montanabw (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ScientificAnglersLogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ScientificAnglersLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Visiting Scholar reflection
Hi Mike! I hope you are doing well. Would you be interested in writing something short (300-700 words) about your experience as a Visiting Scholar? We are trying to capture some reflections from each of the visiting scholars for both our communications of the positions and to create a short series of blog posts.

Questions that might help prompt your writing: What have you learned in collaborating with a Library on Wikipedia work? How does the access the library provides you strengthen your ability to contribute to Wikipedia? What made your experience distinctive? What did you contribute to Wikipedia during that time? Feel free to compose it on Wiki or email it to me. I would like to have as many of you all in our pilot group represented as possible! Thanks much, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Photos from Twin Bridges area?
Mike, in your jaunt to (I presume) go fishing on the Jefferson River, did you by any chance pass by the Doncaster Round Barn? I'd give my eyeteeth (well, almost) for a PD image of that building. My next project (I hope) is to improve Spokane (horse). I've posted a bunch of links on the talk page of stuff I've found. If you have any interest in collaborating there, you are most certainly welcome to do so. (You also get paybacks at me for the trout reviews... LOL!)  Montanabw (talk)  23:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that thing all the time. The next time I go by with my big camera I'll be sure and get some photos.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Heck, even a cell phone shot is better than nothing! (MacDonald Pass would have no images at all were it not for my "dumb phone"). Ping me when you can.  Looks like the NRHP app was sent in last September, so they should be announcing the decision on listing it soon, another article to create.    Montanabw (talk)  03:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

They ain't happy with inline links
DYK wikignomes didn't like your inline link at Bleu Horses to Wheat Montana, so I linked it and started a wee stub: Wheat Montana. Feel free to dive in and help out, particularly if you have photos. Montanabw (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bleu Horses
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Elkhorn, Montana
I fixed it for you [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elkhorn%2C_Montana&diff=647665115&oldid=647580770 again]. do you see how the coordinates_display was there twice before my edit? Please tell me where the WP:MOS states that the article should be in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. We can always take this to WP:ANI if you need someone else to explain what you are doing wrong. 98.230.192.179 (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Message?
Hello Mike, read that you have a message for me, but can´t find it.

BR Wolfgang Fabisch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfi2de (talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wolfgang, please check your talk page: user talk:Wolfi2de. Thanks -- Mike Cline (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Center for Biofilm Engineering
Hello! Your submission of Center for Biofilm Engineering at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Center for Biofilm Engineering
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

blog post out!
FYI, finally got the blog post out: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/17/wikipedia-research-library/. We trimmed a few bits, but kept most of the feedback! Keep up the great work! Already getting some comments in from others in the WMF about the great work! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A discussion at Ulysses S. Grant where your edit history could proved very helpful
There's a civil disagreement going on at Talk:Ulysses S. Grant surrounding Grant's role, if any, in the founding of Yellowstone Park. I asked MONGO and he suggested you as one of two editors who have extensive experience writing on Wikipedia about related pages. Would you be aware of sources which could help? Please consider commenting. Thanks BusterD (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Signature on relisting comment
Would you like to sign the relisting comment? Or I can flag it as unsigned by you, but neater if you fix it.

Thanks for the relisting and research, good call. I almost closed it as moved too! But this is by far the better way forward. Andrewa (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Carbon (fiber)
Could you clarify your reasoning for this close? I count seven supports plus the nominator (myself) and three opposes. What gave the opponents' arguments so much weight? Srnec (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * SRNEC, I will respond with two thoughts.
 * 1)I am always amazed when an editor asks for an explanation of a closed discussion and immediately cites the number of pro/con votes in the discussion, despite the reams of guidance we have about discussions not being decided on votes.
 * 2)I read, re-read and re-read this discussion many times and became convinced there was no real consensus to make the move exactly as requested. Thus I explicitly suggested in the close that another RM take place with a bit more precise alternative for this complex topic.  It always clouds consensus when editors in the discussion propose alternative titles, solutions to the one requested.  In this case I counted at least three alternative solutions.  I think my close was clear enough to allow further resolution of this in a new RM to deal with some of the alternatives especially the issue of PRIMARY TOPIC which would drive different solutions.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Strength of argument. Not number of votes or number of alternative titles proposed. How can alternative proposals cloud the consensus if it's based on strength of argument? That's why I asked what gave their arguments so much weight. How can you say that explicitly support votes weren't for the proposal exactly as requested? What else were they supporting? I tried to address the issue of primary topic by citing sources, both academic and popular, showing how the question "What is carbon fiber?" was answered. Another user cited the OED. A user opposed to the move cited incoming links, which (on cursory inspection at least) shows the opposite of what he thought it did. An anonymous user made several arguments of the form WP:NWFCTM. How would a further move request (third in under a year) help resolve the issue of primary topic? Or did you mean a discussion of a merger? Srnec (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Carbon (fiber)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Carbon (fiber). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Srnec (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding a requested move for Greek Muslims
Hi Mike

I have been checking the page Greek Muslims and you have closed a discussion which has not had the extended time for it to be properly debated. You state that the issue is "content based". The people who have already answered there are 4 support and 3 oppose to changing the title of the article. As such, the discussion should be allowed to proceed. If anything the impetus was towards change. I was going to change it as it was 4 to 3, but wanted more debate. As an administrator i am not sure if you took those issues into account. The debate should be ongoing as the title page is in dispute and defiantly not resolved. The title page does not reflect the views of people from that community and instead reflects a view that may be viewed as one propagating Greek nationalism. Wikipedia i feel is beyond that.

Best regards

Resnjari (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice Mike. I have done so. Its been placed on the move review page. ==Move review for Greek Muslims==

An editor has asked for a Move review of Greek Muslims. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Resnjari (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

About deletions......
"I advise you to correct your comments that violate above mentioned guidelines and not to continue with hostile behavior.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)"


 * One user who wrote on my talk page advised me to "correct my comments". So i deleted them. Yes i know they are of the history page, the same say way that i was accused of POV in my edits, which the editor in question now says only had some wording issues and "that most were ok" making the deletion very questionable, to say the least. I admit i overacted. But a very big deletion was done with no discussion or consultation on any talk page (very ad hoc). That is concerning, because someone who has the privileges of editing or reverting does that without proper scrutiny or oversight because it may not suit them at first. It is all on the Cham Albanians page. Now the editor in question is engaging in a discussion after(not before) i did what i did. Makes one wonder. Who would i go to though if ones feels that an editor has overstepped their mark next time, without it being called "canvassing" or so on ?
 * Regards Resnjari (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you get my email? No need to discuss here yet, just confirming. The Cham Albanians issues are complex (at least from my limited perspective) so I am taking sometime to study up before I address your question. In the meantime read WP:BRD as this will provide some insight to your concerns. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Mike i did not get your email. I was looking for it. My email is on the Albanian wikipedia page. I have been reading into Wikipedia polices. The issue with the Chams is being resolved piecemeal, but with substantive results. However, i do want to ask one thing, if an editor who has privileges to revert and so on is dismissive and they don't like what one has written (even with sources and no its not the Greek Muslims page, though you can have a look at it, but other Ottoman related page.) even after engaging with them through good faith, can they limit the amount of text(place restrictions) one can even put on a talk page of article page so to undertake further discussion without telling them. I seem to be having problems of being able to post more than a paragraph. I am concerned that some editors who pulled out the policy book on me (and i am glad they did so) don't seem not to want to go by certain rules when the same is applicable to them. Some quick advice please.

Resnjari (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Humour
Perhaps you missed my point. I'll try one more time. Back at Yoghurt we had the same situation. RM after RM resulted in 50/50 (more or less), and many argued there is no consensus and everyone should move on and work on the encyclopedia, just as you did here. But since the original title of the article was Yogurt, and it had been moved to Yoghurt under dubious pretenses, the policy-based reason (RETAIN) to restore the original title remained. Some of us argued there was no flip-side: if the article was moved back to Yogurt, then there would be no policy-based reason to move it again. That would be a decision truly supported by community consensus. But for years that argument was ignored. Only after an absurd amount of time and effort was devoted to explaining the history and situation was the article finally moved. And guess what? No (serious) challenges yet, and it has been over three years now. Why? Because, as predicted, once that tile was moved back to Yogurt, there would be no policy based reason to move it again. We have the exact same situation at Humour. The policy based reason to move will remain as long as that article remains at Humour. Only when it is moved back to its original title at Humor will that title have community consensus, because there will be no policy based reason to move it from Humor. Why is this not obvious? Why is it necessary to go through all the time and effort that we had to waste at Yogurt to get to such an obvious clear resolution? --В²C ☎ 18:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Millennial (blog)
Hi. As I don't want into get into a move war with another editor, can I request comment re actions following the RM which you closed re this page and Millennials (disambiguation)/Millennial. It seems to me that these weren't supported by the RM discussion or its closure. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As I think I said elsewhere, my primary decision was the move to Millennial (blog) which left the need to do something with Millennial which I decided to redirect to the DAB page. That may be considered an error by some in the discussion. I will admit I was throw off a bit in sorting this out by your misspelling of millenial in your support position. The best way to prevent a Move War is too raise the issue at RM or RfD, which ever is more appropriate as inevitable fallout of the move to the blog title. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Melee
There was recently move debate in which you took part Talk:Melee. The debate continues in a slightly different form on the same page, your participation in it might help build a consensus. Please join the debate on whether it is appropriate to include the maintenance coatrack in the article Melee. --PBS-AWB (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Wondering if you would be willing to help me better understand requested moves
Our mutual acquaintance MONGO suggested a while back that you might be a good mentor for various areas of activity. After the discussion at WT:RM, I've decided I need more experience in this area. I've read the material; I just don't have the deep understanding yet that comes from frequently contributing (and making mistakes closing). I'm planning to plunge a bit deeper. Would you mind answering questions about specifics when i need seasoning? BusterD (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you agree with my course of action here? BusterD (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Vigilantes
I'll watchlist the PR to help answer any questions others may have or to fix simpler stuff they raise. If I see anything that bugs me on the article, I'll just BRD. If FAC in the past is any indication, go through the citations with a fine-toothed comb for consistency and check all the images at commons to make sure their copyright tag is OK. Any major additions suggested will probably have to be your work, though if you need something to be checked out at MHS or need to ping IRL or via email, I may be able to help. Montanabw (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Doubt about move request
Hi, Mike. I believe we haven't met yet. Three years ago you closed a move request on Paraguayan War (to change it to "War of the Triple Alliance"). An editor who took part on that move request has opened a new move request with the same arguments (you'll see him on your own talk page archive for January-February 2012). Is there a procedure regarding this kind of situation? For what I saw in that article's talk page, the matter was discussed and long forgotten until now. Since the argument is the same as three years ago, I find it pointless to do the move request all over again. Of course, I'm biased since I support the maintainance of the presents name. What would you suggest? --Lecen (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you very much for explaining to me. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to bother you with this again, but that move request has become a ridiculous affair. The proposer is presenting misleading data as legitimate. He presented a NGRAM search with "The Paraguayan War" and "War of the Triple Alliance", where "Paraguayan War" with the odd "The" obviously got far less results than the other name. Two other editors and myself pointed out that "mistake" (supposing that he made an honest mistake), but the proposer ignored us and kept it (after I removed the misleading graphic he added, he re-added it). Now, seeing that there is no consensus for his move proposal, he opened a second move request presenting the misleading data again. --Lecen (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=665732131 your edit] to Slough Creek (Wyoming) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * National Park]] and into Wyoming. It discharges to the Lamar River near Tower junction within Yellowstone National Park.  In turn the Lamar River forms a confluence with the [[

Bozeman ping
Better go help these folks before they get themselves into COI trouble: User talk:MSU-OPA. Montanabw (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> leadership

Thank you, Mike, for a passionate catchy infobox of yourself, for quality articles such as Cutthroat trout and Fort Yellowstone, for the 518 articles you already donated, for the Inclusionist's Guide To Deletion Debates, "for steadfast and calm adminship and leadership of WP:Montana and treating users with great decency", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (26 February 2012)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 885th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, now listing 540 articles, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Oriya/Odia
Hi. Wondering how you determined "Odia" was the COMMONNAME, when "Oriya" is the term used in RS's (i.e. in the field in question) and the form "Odia" is geographically constrained. — kwami (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Round barn up
Just started Doncaster Round Barn (finally got photos!) Want to help me expand and improve it a bit? Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

ygm
--Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Big Spring Creek (Montana), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Milk River, Angler and Nez Perce. 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) 09:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Rainbow trout
Would you consider decreasing the protection on rainbow trout from semi to PC? It doesn't look like the page had ever been protected before March 2014, when you semi-protected it indefinitely. <span style="color:forestgreen;font-family:Georgia,serif">Conifer (<span style="color:forestgreen;font-family:Georgia,serif">talk ) 02:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Bambi
It all depends on whose definition of "nice" though, that's the problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for closing out the move discussion
My bad. I should have realized I needed to do that. Thank you very much for closing it for me. Jeff in CA (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs
Per WP:MR, I would like you to review your close of the move discussion at Talk:Foreign Affairs. The closing statement does not address any issue raised in the opening statement or discuss the title in relation to the appropriate guideline at WP:AT. Also, we cannot get evidence that warrants trying again in 6 months without first doing the 3-day trial proposed. DrKiernan (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. There was clearly no consensus for this move and initiating an rm the day after a previous one closed is not good practice.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no move warring. The page has only been moved twice in the last ten years. DrKiernan (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Foreign Affairs
An editor has asked for a Move review of Foreign Affairs. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. DrKiernan (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Spelling
I suggest changing "eminated" to "emanated" as a spelling correction. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Not rally my circus...
Check to see that less reliable sources aren't being used in place of more reliable ones? Talk:Fur_trade_in_Montana I don't want to get into the position where I am caring more about this article than the people who did most of the work on it. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Not moved
May I asked why you marked Talk:Güveç (cooking) as Not moved? Nobody opposed the move (and indeed, nobody could, as there are no grounds on which to oppose). It was an as undisputed move as they come.--Orwellianist (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Closed as Not Moved because no-one provided compelling evidence it was the primary topic. Other than the requester, no one supported it either --Mike Cline (talk)}
 * "Unlike articles for deletion, where lack of participation requires relisting, no minimum participation is required for requested moves because for most moves there is no need to make a request at all; the need arises only because of a technical limitation resulting from the target article name existing as a redirect with more than one edit. Thus, if no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested" (Requested moves/Closing instructions) I didn't need to give compelling evidence because I knew that it would be uncontested, as anybody familiar with the subject would know which is the primary topic. Still, I gave the evidence in case an outsider or administrator would like to see it; take a look at https://www.google.com/#q=güveç&tbm=bks and see that almost every single one of the 3.320 results refer to the meaning in this article. You can use any other search engine or any other research method as well. Please tell me how may I further dispel your suspicion, as that seems to be the only thing standing in the way, not Wikipedia policy or other users.--Orwellianist (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I would suggest WP:Move review. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I will, if you don't correct the outcome yourself. Do you have any reason not to? That the page should be moved seems straightforward to me, given Wikipedia policy, discussion and sources. If you precipitately closed the request and now recognize that it should be moved, perhaps you can correct it yourself.--Orwellianist (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Nur_Ali_Elahi
Hi, it seems that you've determined that there was consensus not to move Nur Ali Elahi → Ostad Elahi, but in actuality there was no such consensus. There were only two votes to oppose and neither voter's reasons for opposition were based on Wikipedia: Article titles. I think we should wait until at least a few editors who have reviewed the Wikipedia policy on article titles can comment on the proposed move based on that policy. Naolae (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mop watch
--Mike Cline (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

United Belgian States
Hi. I noticed that following an RM, you moved an article to the title of United Belgium States instead of the correct title of United Belgian States. Do you think you could fix this? Thanks!  Oreo Priest  talk 20:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I will fix shortly, thanks for the heads up --Mike Cline (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Nur Ali Elahi
An editor has asked for a Move review of Nur Ali Elahi. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Naolae (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Vert (heraldry) spelling
Hello. Can you please check the spelling in the parenthesis for Vert (hereldry)? I think it should be "heraldry", not "hereldry". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for the catch --Mike Cline (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Olin Dunbar Wheeler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green River. 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) 10:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Closing discussion of move
Hi. I think you closed the discussion at Talk:9×19mm Parabellum too soon. Would you please re-open it? The discussion had only involved two editors up to that point, the requester included. Also, if you do re-open it, where do you suggest going to get additional input? Thanks, Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request Sugar Mountain Farm


Hi Mike, I hope I'm doing this the right way...

On the Sugar Mountain Farm page paragraph five sentence one could be corrected from:

Initially the farmers had to transport six pigs at a time 150 miles (240 km) to the nearest butcher.

to:

Initially the farmers had to transport six to 12 pigs at a time 300 miles (480 km) to the nearest butcher.

Some other details that could use correction the number of pigs varies somewhat seasonally and is typically around 400 and the number of breeders varies from about 40 to 100 sows with about nine to twelve breeder boars with seven genetic lines including purebred Yorkshire, Berkshire, Large Black (2 lines) and Tamworth in addition to our farm's own cross lines of Mainline, Blackieline and Mahoganyline. There is also the founding date of the farm. We were doing commercial maple sugaring and forestry back in the late 1980's which is where the farm's name comes from. (Maple Sugaring ---> Sugar Bush (where maple trees are) ---> Sugar Mountain ---> Sugar Mountain Farm). The founding date - when I bought the land - is July 28th, 1989. I can send you a scan of the deed with that date if that helps verify.

The line about "and pasturing males away from females." is simply false. We keep males and females together. See: http://SugarMtnFarm.com/taint where this is discussed. That error comes from a reporter (reference 7) who made a mistake. Reporters do that sometimes. Errors even happen in peer reviewed scientific journals. It's a myth that it is necessary to keep them separate and I would like to see that corrected.

In paragraph one it says:

The pigs are fed acid whey from a nearby dairy farm

which isn't quite true. Some of our whey is acid whey (made from yogurt) but much of our whey is sweet whey (made from butter and cheese making). It would make it more accurate to simply remove the word acid, which is meaningless to all but the most technical. To be absolutely correct it would be acid _and_ sweet whey in the sentence. Most of it at this time is the sweet whey. This varies. I tend to say simply dairy because sometimes it's acid whey, sometimes it's sweet whey, sometimes it's cream, sometimes it's milk, etc. Dairy covers it. Whey has sort of a cache about it and it is most of what we get. It is also not a farm but a "dairy" also known as a creamery. They buy milk from many farms and make butter & cheese. This past year they actually started their own goat farm at another location but the place the whey comes from is technically not a farm but rather a creamery. Perhaps this is too technically hair splitting. Anyways, I would suggest something like this instead for that sentence:

The pigs are fed whey from a nearby butter & cheese maker.

That might be the easiest to understand by the average reader.

Thank you for your help,

-Walter Might want to have discussions about the article in the articles talk page. With respect to factual corrections (distance animals are trucked for slaughter, for instance) I don't know what the policy is. Do we stick with the quoted source, or can we make the correction that is at odds with the quoted source? Bruceki (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Without WP:reliable sources, what you say here is not verifiable. It is unfortunate if there are mistakes, but we have to defer to sources available. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West Beck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grayling. 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) 10:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Move review
As an admin actively involved in RM, I would appreciate you weighing in on the following move review for Kim Davis. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks... Tiggerjay (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bogachiel River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dolly Varden. 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) 10:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sakasa Kebari article
Mike, I hope this is the appropriate place to discuss this. You made some edits to an article that I created and I thank you for your time. I do, however, have a concern about one of them. You moved three of the images to float along the right side of the page. This removed the images from the context of the article. I originally had a header, then the appropriate image, then a paragraph of text that supported that image. The way it stands now the images are completely disconnected from the supporting text. This seems to be even more of an issue when viewing the page on a mobile device. With the width of a mobile screen the images are now randomly located in the article.

You obviously had reason for doing this edit but as I had a reason for laying it out the way I did I'm wondering if there's a better way for me to accomplish what I was trying to do. I am admittedly new to creating articles so perhaps I'm going about this in the wrong way. Any insight is appreciated. Spinsheet (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
)