User talk:Mike Cline/Archive 11

United Provinces of the River Plate
You appear to have been under the impression that the article had been stable at the previous name and the move in September was recent. This isn't the case, the article was created in 2005 and only moved to the Spanish name in 2011. That requested move had 3 participants, all Spanish speakers. People didn't participate since at that time there was a noisy group who insisted on using the Spanish language name all over wikipedia. Its bizarre that on Wikipedia we're not using the commonly accepted English Language name and that a small but noisy group can force articles to be kept hostage at uncommon names. If you actually analyse traffic to these articles, in most cases they're hit via the redirect, which increases the load on servers. May I suggest a very simple experiment, via a search on Google Books to look at the difference between the two. The English language name is very much more common. WCM email 13:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC
 * I think my issue with the close, not you personally, is that if you look at the weight of argument rather than weight of votes there was no rationale really to move it back. The reasons for using the Spanish language name on the English Wikipedia are not rational or logical.  Using English language names on an English encyclopedia seems a good reason to me.  WCM email 17:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, I should have said the predominant term in the English language. Your numbers don't surprise me, I did an analysis that produced an identical result.  WCM email 18:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It reminds me of the extensive (and successful) campaign to replace the traditional English names of ancient and mediaeval Greek people and places with ones using the different transliteration of the Greek alphabet which is used for modern Greek (so that Constantine becomes Konstantinos, e.g.). Deipnosophista (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/February 16, 2016
Mike and MONGO, a summary of a Featured Article you guys nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Wish it could be clarified that the article is 99% Mike's work...all I did was some copyediting and I nominated it.--MONGO 09:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Who nominates is generally a non-issue, I just like to notify all nominators. Thanks for the great work, guys. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike! Nice looking article you got on the mainpage today!--MONGO 11:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I let the folks at the Yellowstone Association know about last week, but they never acknowledged my email. Got a few things cooking, but our mild February has kept me too focused on fishing. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Like your article on Granville Stuart
Hi Mike. I've come back with, hopefully, a bit more knowledge of Montana history. Good to see you finally got out that Granville Stuart article. Hope to make a few contributions, although nothing to rival what you've done. Very impressive!

John Wilson Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Didn't you go to the source page?
I provided a source that clearly stated that there are foxes in yellowstone. They even had a photo.

Here is the IP address: http://www.yellowstonenationalpark.com/wildlife.htm

There is the proof. Evancahill (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not the point; foxes are everywhere. Montanabw (talk) | GO THUNDER!  01:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Ned H. Roberts article
"I noted in the edits you made to Ned H. Roberts that you hyperlinked a great number of things that did not have articles (redlinks). This is frowned on and some one or some bot will eventually clean them up (needless work). If the redlinked topic is notable and should have an article, create the article first, then link it."

My intention was to provide articles later but, very well, I will remove the red hyperlinks.

"Also, on Ned H. Roberts, none of the content is cited to sources. Although there are references listed, they provide no link to specific content in the article."  This is just wrong. Those footnotes reference specific sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venator48 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Cutthroat Trout sources
Hello Mike. I noticed that you are a major contributor to Cutthroat trout. Some of the sources such as Behnke; Trout and Salmon of North America, Trotter; Cutthroat: Native Trout of the West and a few others are repeated several times. If a new Sources section were introduced together with sfn or harv type refs a lot of the repetition could be removed. In the interests of brevity perhaps the chapter titles could be dropped, leaving just the book title. What do you think? Jodosma (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure what purpose that serves. When this article went through FAC there was a lot of emphasis on citing specifics in the sources via chapters and page numbers.  And personally, I find the sfn style references not near as useful.  But thanks for asking. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into the local language

Thanks again :) -- Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Do me a favor, Mike, and delete this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.O._Neidner  I started a draft article because "A.O. Niedner" came up red marked in my Ned H. Roberts article. Then I found there already was a "Adolph Otto Niedner" article. And! I had am embarrassing typo in the bloody title.

Amadis de Gaula
Hello Mike Cline

I hope you're well.

Consider me somewhat baffled by your move today at Talk:Amadis de Gaula. You mentioned WP:COMMONNAME in the close, yet the only clear evidence of common name presented in the debate was my NGRAM, which shows that the unaccented form dominates the one with the accent by about two to one. Please could you clarify where the evidence of common name is found? Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Without trying to effectively supervote! this one, I reviewed two extensive searches on JSTOR and on my Montana State University Library account and found that in titles and in text in English language sources, the "Amadìs de Gaula" was significantly more common. As always, these kinds of titles can go either way, depending on how one searches for them.  It had languished in backlog for a while so I made the move. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You say "without trying to effectively supervote! this one" - yet it seems like that's exactly what you did :) I guess in your position, if I think I have new evidence, I go for a new vote and present the evidence rather than a close. I do hear you on the backlog, but we're not in a massive hurry on anything, it's better to get it right. But in any case, I'm happy with your answer and I respect your decision, thanks for clearing it up for me. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

RM close at Talk:Siobhan
I'm curious about the details of your finding of consensus at the RM at Talk:Siobhan. There was no majority of discussants in favour of the move and the arguments seemed tepid, relying largely on a Google ngram comparison. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  01:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Again hoping to avoid the idea of a supervote!, I evaluated this RM as follows. First, supporters and opposers were actually addressing different questions.  This is fairly common in RMs dealing with name spelling.  Supporters were effectively arguing that “Siobhan” was the most common spelling of the name in English language sources.  Opposers were effectively arguing that the Irish origin of the name “Siobhán”, not its commonness in sources should determine the title spelling.  Of course the Commonname argument has strong basis in WP title policy.    The “origin” of the name, as fair as I can tell, as a policy argument is not supported.  In fact, WP:COMMONNAME specifically discounts it with “…Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.”  And there is overwhelming evidence from books, scholarly sources and such that “Siobhan” is the most common spelling, a position I validated by doing some extensive searches on JSTOR and within the Montana State University Library Online catalog.  If the opposers had been arguing that “Siobhan” was not the most common name in English language sources and had backed that up with sound data, I would not have moved the article title. Hope this helps. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and your time. —  AjaxSmack  00:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Round two
Articles for deletion/Montana Justice Foundation (2nd nomination). I !voted, but I have a clear COI because I'm involved with an organization that gets funding from MJF, so I can't do much more. Montanabw (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Mike, as noted, I really can't edit that article, but the reviewers' comments that some source expansion would be helpful are well taken.  I wonder if you or  would be interested in working on it?  I am going to really try to model how someone with a COI might handle an article that needs improvement here ...   Montanabw (talk)  22:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bentonville
Thanks for reducing the RM backlog, but shouldn't this be closed as "no consensus" instead? sst✈ 12:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically probably yes, in reality, the result is the same and "Not Moved" does not limit further legitimate discussion on a title if facts and policy warrant.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Insects in fishing
Mike, I'm working on a new Template:Insects in culture and have been filling in a lot of surprising gaps - how come we had no Insects in literature or Insects in music, till just now? Anyway, we still have no Insects in fishing, which given the sophistication of an angler's entomology does seem a gap well worth filling. I could cobble something together but I suspect that someone with a rather deeper knowledge of the art might be able to do a better job? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: Insects in Fishing
 * Unlike Insects in Music, Literature or Culture where “the insect” is being depicted or used as a metaphor, I don’t think the same applies to Insects in fishing. First, insects in the context of the activity of fishing fall into two categories—1) bait to attract strikes from fish and 2) nuisances or pests to that impact the pleasure of fishing (think mosquitos or black flies for example).  We already have articles artificial flies and fly tying which outlines the imitation of insects for fishing purposes and Fishing bait which includes discussion of insects as bait.  I am not quite sure what would be different from a theme standpoint in Insects in fishing.  All that said, there is potentially some content related to fly fishing that may be appropriate in Insects and culture and Insects in literature.  The depiction and imitation of insects in fly fishing literature goes back to the 15th century and continues today.  In culture, the names of various insect families most associated with fly fishing—May flies, Stone flies, and Caddis flies are widely used in both commercial situations and in literature.  In this article, there are at least three pseudonyms that represent may flies.


 * My recommendation is that we try an incorporate relevant fishing related content re insects into the culture and literature articles instead of trying to repeat content that’s already in the various fishing articles above in a new article. Thoughts. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I'll think about what to do. I certainly agree that the article would need to mention and link the articles you mention; it would also, I think, need to say something about an angler's entomology, i.e. knowledge of the phenology and behaviour of the various insects imitated by artificial flies, and how to use them. The topic thus seems to me to touch on and have as sub-articles all the things we've mentioned, but all the same an article at that level is in fact still missing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Girls Gone Wild (franchise)
Whether this should be moved depends on the consensus in the discussion, not the rationale of the nominator. SST flyer 16:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * that's true, but the nominator's rationale is also part of the discussion, and an important one for it sets the tone for the conversation that follows. If the closer considers that the reason is invalid, it is not unexpected that they would mention that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

,  As so many television and movie judges have implored prosecutors and defense attorneys, "Counselor, is there a question forthcoming for the witness.  Well if there is, get to it." --Mike Cline (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Pony, Montana
Hi Mike. Please don't copy material from other websites onto this wiki, not even temporarily. Please do your pre-editing in a text file rather than on the live site. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Necanicum River
Thank you for your recent Necanicum River edit. I was about to do the same thing while editing yesterday as I was 99% certain Chinook are native to every larger Oregon stream and river entering the Pacific. I chickened out and used { {citation needed} } :-) 72.234.220.38 (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

RM close
Re: this. It seems you've made a mistake. The original move was improper and the request to move back to the original title was supported by the MOS. I'm not sure what you based your decision on, but it was incorrect and you should read through the discussion, carefully, and re-consider. This isn't just about counting "oppose" votes. - the WOLF  child  21:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like maybe the same mistake was made by the closers of all the discussions since the WP:JR revision:


 * Talk:Andrew_L._Lewis_Jr.
 * Talk:Robert_Downey_Jr.
 * Talk:Feodor_Chaliapin_Jr.
 * Talk:Benjamin_O._Davis_Sr.
 * Talk:Larry_Mullen_Jr.
 * Talk:Desi_Arnaz_Jr.
 * Talk:Arthur_Ochs_Sulzberger_Jr.
 * Talk:Harry_K._Daghlian_Jr.
 * Talk:Dale_Earnhardt_Jr.
 * Talk:Alan_Hale_Sr.
 * ... the mistake of ignoring the howl of the WOLF, that is. Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's nothing unclear about MOS:JR: "Omission of the comma before Jr. / Jr / Jnr or Sr. / Sr / Snr is preferred. The comma can be used in cases where it is clearly and consistently preferred for a particular subject in current, reliable sources (most likely a living subject whose own preference is clear and consistent)." Thewolfchild and Dohn joe keep going from RM to RM saying "use the comma per MOS" but MOS says exactly the opposite what they claim it does. Not sure what game that is supposed to be, but no one's buying it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I stalk SMc's contribs page from time to time. I agree with his post here. Tony   (talk)  06:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I also have Mike's talk page on my watchlist, so am stalking around as well! Of course, this is a valid close. WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a reason for something to happen hasn't become policy yet, I don't think... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)  Comment withdrawn, I'm not involved here anyway.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "WP:IDLI"? Try MOS... (you're an admin, right? Surely you've read MOS?) - the WOLF  child  10:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

- Thanks for your concern on this close. In my view it was closed properly and consistent with the consensus in the discussion and WP:RMCI. If you believe the close was improper, the community has established a recourse in the Move review process. Don't hesitate to use that process if you believe the close was made improperly. --Mike Cline (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Riiiight... "it is consistent with MOS:JR" - at least, the way MOS:JR has been re-written by the editors who commented above. But I'm not talking about "MOS:JR", I'm referring to MOS itself. It was stated clearly, and repeatedly, in the RM that the comma is still an acceptable style, ("preferred" or otherwise), that the original title had the comma, the page was moved, without consensus, to remove the comma, the page move was contested and therefore should have been reverted back to original title. I'm not sure what is unclear about this, but this is why the close was improper. There is no clear consensus there either way, (and my understanding is a local consensus doesn't overrule a global guideline anyway). I don't see how the other pages mentioned above are relevant here, (unless they are the exact same circumstances, in which case then all those moves and closes were also improper), and I won't be addressing the comments of those stalkers and hounders editors. I am, however, responding to you, the admin that closed that RM without moving the page back to where it should be. (Since when do admins ignore guidelines?) How about saving me the trouble of WP:MR and simply moving the page to where it should've been in the first place? - the WOLF  child  10:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I won't bother with the move review as I have feeling it would be a waste of time and I have also been not-so-subtly threatened with harsh reprisals if I pursue this in any manner. So I will make this my last post on the matter (I will respond if you request me to). I will ask you a simple question and watch for your response. Following that you will either reconsider your close or you won't, but either way I'll let the matter rest (I'm not sure this is how Wikipedia is supposed to be, but this just isn't worth all the grief, threats and insults). My question is this; the lead to WP:MOS states; Where more than one style is acceptable under the Manual of Style, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. This seems to clearly support the move request, and in light of the lack of clear consensus, why close as 'not moved'? Thank you for your time. - the WOLF  child  14:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tell you what...
 * Wolf, I think people have heard your claims; Dohn joe makes similar interpretations of "more than one style is acceptable" and "without a good reason", but the community of editors has clearly rejected those interpretations in light of WP:JR and the RFC that led to it, in many of the RM discussions that I linked above. Admins, like other editors, can see that.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I am not threatening anyone for using any review procedure. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Email
I sent you an email, and it is very urgent you read it as soon as possible.

Thank You, Maddison Keen — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaddieKeen24 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Moving Chrysler to FCA US
Mike: I've had a little challenge finding you. A couple days ago I started cleaning up the Fiat Chrysler mess with all their different pages, many of which were labeled incorrectly. I think I've improved things a good deal, but now it comes down to changing the Name of the FCA US page, which at present is Chrysler. I've already talked with two editors about this Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronhjones#Fiat_Chrysler

and here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Optakeover#Creating_FCA_US

My premise is this:

There are two pages about Chrysler, one about the brand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_%28brand%29

and one about the corporate entity, including history about the corporation which doesn't exist any longer and has been renamed FCA US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler

I've read COMMONNAMES and that does NOT apply to Company Names. Company Names are legal things and companies are normally not referred to by a previous name, simply because that name is no longer accurate. It would be like Cassius Clay changing his name to Muhammad Ali. Even though people were more familiar with Cassius Clay, his new legal name was Muhammad Ali. Cassius Clay should forward to Muhammad Ali, not the other way around.

Also, there may be a conflict of interest by Chrysler employees / public relations people who want to keep the name as Chrysler on Wikipedia just for the added name recognition.

So I'd like to change the name of the page from Chrysler to FCA US. My strategy to do this would be to 1. Copy the page from Chrysler to FCA US 2. Remove the forward from FCA US to Chrysler 3. Delete the original page for Chrysler 4. Add a forward from Chrysler to FCA US

All of these could be done at the same time to eliminate any downtime. Your thoughts? Charliep8 (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey and Mike Cline, mind if I weigh in here, and don't worry as I'm not trying to stalk you or in a grudge match with you, but I would just like to make my views known here together with yours and others. @Mark Cline, I am here after the discussion I had with Charliep8 on my talkpage.


 * Please refer back to Talk:Chrysler/Archive 3. The discussion to rename Chrysler to FCA LLC or similar has been a negative result, and is an example of community consensus.
 * Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 12:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see ANY discussion in the page you point to, just a bunch of conclusions by a bunch of people who Opposed addressing reality. Perhaps you can point me to the page where the discussion actually is?


 * Charliep8 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please understand that Wikipedia works on community consensus and agreement to get things done, and a discussion had happened recently and a majority voted for no change, so if you are interested to restart another move/rename discussion, please understand that the similar stated discussion had happened so recently, so you might one to think about it whether your position may be supported by others. I'm not suggesting to you to take or not take action, but its a possibility for you either way. At the end of the day, Mike Cline is not the owner of the discussion, he happened to close it after an adequate timeframe since there was clear consensus to decide on the outcome, so Mike isn't in a position to do anything for you with regards to renaming; for that another discussion should appropriately take place, as due to the notability of the organisation, this article renaming is big business indeed.


 * At this moment, let me explain to you my take on the discussion and on WP:COMMONNAME. As you said that the rule didn't specifically refer to company names; therefore I think it's exactly the point that since it didn't say anything, COMMONNAME should apply to everything: every name and pronoun of almost every person, thing, organisation and etcetera. In fact, this is not the only article; other examples are University of California, Los Angeles (a company) which is not called by its short name but by its full name, even after the organisation itself has officially rebranded itself to UCLA and should be called UCLA in real-life.
 * Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 12:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi and ! Optakeover I didn't think I would see you on this discussion but the more the merrier.


 * Here you are arguing AGAINST "Common Names". First I want to point out that "Common Names" is pretty specific with 21 examples of what can be referred to with a common name and NOWHERE does it state a "Company Name". In fact, your example is perfect because FAR MORE people use the common name UCLA than the full name, but Wikipedia uses the correct name. Thank you. I show more examples below.
 * Charliep8 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You must understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and lay people all around the world like you and me read it. Though Wikipedia strives to be factually-accurate, it needs offer information to people as they expect it when they search for it, whether by googling for the Chrysler page on Google, or searching for it on Wikipedia's search function; the fact is that people recognises the US company proper as Chrysler, and not FCA LLC, where the latter name was taken on after the acquisition and rebranding by FCA Italy. Here is a brief history: Chrysler LLC, as a company, started doing business in 1925. Fiat Group Automobiles, which was founded in 2007
 * Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 12:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I got to interrupt but you are completely WRONG or biased. Chrysler was formed in 1925, but Chrysler Group LLC - the company FIAT bought - was formed in 2007 when Daimler walked (ran) away from Chrysler. Fiat produced its first automobile way back in 1899 and at one time had the largest automobile factory in Europe. For the record I have no relationship with Fiat or Chrysler and I am not accusing you of bias, but your lead in is not at all accurate.
 * Charliep8 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * as the holding company and owner of its flagship car brand - Fiat, subequently bought over Chrysler LLC, and decided to then rebrand Chrysler LLC as FCA LLC to show the relationship between the two companies and brands; it's interesting that with the purchase of Chrysler, Fiat had decided not to throw away the brand name Chrysler, but has included it as part of its own name thus forming FCA - or Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. And then, Fiat Group Automobiles itself became FCA Italy. In short, Chrysler as a company still exists today, but with the name FCA US.


 * As mentioned already, the US company proper, Chrysler, which still exists today as a subsidiary of a company, albeit with a different brand is still very much known by its original name, Chrysler.
 * Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 12:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * According to ... Wikipedia:
 * "Chrysler Group LLC remained a subsidiary until December 15, 2014, when it was renamed FCA US LLC"


 * After Fiat acquired 100% of Chrysler Group LLC they changed the name to FCA US LLC and now 'Chrysler' no longer exists as a company name.


 * Chrysler is now a brand, NOT a company. The name of the USA company is FCA US LLC. This is not a matter of opinion to be voted upon, it is a matter of fact. The ONLY way to accurately refer to this company is FCA US LLC. If you want to write an article about Chrysler then create a separate page about a company that used to be named Chrysler Group LLC. Since that company has been renamed FCA US LLC it is only proper to refer to the company by the new name.


 * But I always thought Wikipedia wanted cites. How about this cite:
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=is+fca+us+still+commonly+referred+to+as+chrysler+or+as+fca+us
 * NINE of the top 10 results say Chrysler no longer exists. The only one to state the opposite is ... Wikipedia.
 * Charliep8 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just imagine in your own mind, the average joe sitting in front of his computer, and who probably owns a 2008 Chrysler Voyager, takes a glance out of his window and his eyes catches a glimpse of his car, and thinks to himself, "Hey, let's find out more about that company who built my car; I'm gonna type Chrysler into Google", and sees that the third hit is the Wikipedia page Chrysler, and ends up reading it. Now, would you think someone would look at a Chrysler Voyager and go "Oh yes, a Chrysler car on the road. Better check out FCA LLC to find out more about that Chrysler"?????
 * Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 12:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a red herring for so many reasons:


 * 1. The way Google works the article about FCA US LLC will still be in the first couple search results for 'Chrysler';
 * 2. As was the case with FCA Italy, the text at the top of the FCA_US Wikipedia page will read: "FCA US LLC (formerly Chrysler Group LLC)". People will know they are in the right place;
 * 3. That text "FCA US LLC (formerly Chrysler Group LLC)" will appear in the Google results directly below the title "FCA US - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia";
 * 4. There is already a "Chrysler_(brand)" Wikipedia page. Why should there be two Wikipedia pages about Chrysler when the company no longer exists? ---> I am certain the PF guys over at FCA US LLC LOVE THIS!
 * 5. If the Chrysler_(brand) Wikipedia page becomes more popular then so what? People looking for the 'Chrysler' corporate page will still get there in the end and will learn that Chrysler no longer exists along the way. How is that a bad thing?
 * 6. Why is Wikipedia not uniform? Why is it okay to replace "Fiat Group Automobiles SpA" with "FCA Italy" but not okay to do the same for "Chrysler Group LLC"? Please explain.
 * 7. Why are the results not the same in English and in Italian. The Italian Wikipedia page goes directly to "FCA US", but the US Wikipedia page goes to "Chrysler"? How can these be different?
 * 8. If the result of this debate is just decided by votes by interested parties who respond to this discussion how can Wikipedia be certain those responses are not generated by the folks over at FCA US LLC playing games?


 * Charliep8 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 12:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It may just be me and my own opinion, but the fact that the discussion at Talk:Chrysler/Archive 3 shows that others have said the same thing; I won't speak on their behalf, but their views (and votes) are there to be seen. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we have to expect that the vast majority of people in the US and the world would want to search for the name Chrysler, not FCA US when they see a Voyager on the road. That is COMMONNAME. Though real-life is real-life and real-life should be accurate, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is actually read by people. And we have to ask ourselves, What are people actually looking for?.
 * Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 12:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Really, because I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to be ACCURATE!


 * Again, a total red herring.


 * I can think of a great brand where people would have to read past the title of the company to find out the company owned the brand: The J.M. Smucker Company. They make Smucker's jelly, in addition to many other items. So how come we don't refer to that company by its "Common Name"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_J.M._Smucker_Company


 * Another perhaps even better example: Tootsie Rolls. This company makes nothing BUT Tootsie branded products! So why do we not use the "Common Name" and just refer to the company name as "Tootsie Roll" instead of "Tootsie Roll Industries"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tootsie_Roll_Industries


 * Actually, in this case there is a separate Wikipedia page referring to brand "Tootsie Rolls" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tootsie_Roll (kind of similar to the separate Wikipedia page referring to ... Chrysler (brand)


 * Charliep8 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Now I don't dispute that things could change in future, that several years down the road the brand FCA US/LLC/etc. may come into wider public conscience and people would know the US company as FCA, but for now I feel it's not the case, and others have also felt the same thing. Now, if you really want to restart another discussion like this, feel free to do so on Talk:Chrysler as I have already told you on my own talk page, or post on WP:RFC and WP:Village Pump (proposals), where there is a lot of attention and your views will be heard much more easily. Once again, Mike Cline can't do anything because he just happened to be the admin who closed the said discussion, which had met community consensus, and he himself didn't take part in the discussion. So I can tell you that you could go ahead and be bold and make your views known; just understand that there has already been a recent discussion on it, and just ask yourself how many people would be on your side; I'm not telling you that you have no chance, but I thought I'd just tell you about it.


 * At the end of the day, Wikipedia is a community project, and no one individual owns it. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 12:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, I disagree with what you said about Muhammad Ali. Exactly the point about WP:COMMONNAME, that Ali gained his notoriety in the ring and his boxing career, and his political activism while he bore his new name Muhammad Ali, and it was his boxing career and political activism which makes him notable in Wikipedia and in real-life, hence that's why his household name is Muhammad Ali. Optakeover (U)(T)(C)


 * I think you missed my point. While Muhammad Ali is not a good example because he is a person as opposed to a corporate entity, he is a good example because so many in the press continued to live in the past.


 * Cassius Clay won the Olympics in 1960 and beat Sonny Liston to become the heavyweight champion of the world, so was plenty well known as Cassius Clay. If you go back in time you won't find Muhammad Ali as a winner in the Olympics. He changed his name to Muhammad Ali on March 6, 1964, ten days after becoming the heavyweight champion, but for years some publications, including the NY Times referred to him as Cassius Clay (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/sports/muhammad-ali-name-cassius-clay-newspapers.html). Even some of his opponents refused to respect his request and call him by his new name and they paid for their decision dearly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBVviGSgu7M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph9JlXPClkk


 * Wikipedia is on the wrong side of this argument. It is understandable to use IBM for International Business Machines even though almost all other Encyclopedias use the full name. But this case is different: Chrysler as a company name no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliep8 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

... and six --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Magic pixie dust request
Mike, if you are able to do so with minimal difficulty, would you mind popping in the standard geographic place infobox and formatting here: User:Montanabw/Crow Creek Falls as you have done for so many other geographic features in Montana? I have photos, will be creating article, but you are probably faster and better at doing the basic formatting stuff. I swiped what was at Waterfalls of Montana. The google pin is about a quarter mile downstream, so not sure how to handle that wee discrepancy. Montanabw (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI
May want to monitor edits at Deer Lodge, Montana and Deer Lodge County, Montana. Returning editor, not doing a real great job, but might improve with some hand-holding, for which I lack the patience. Montanabw (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Derby RM close
Hi, I'm not disagreeing with the closing result, but your closing statement is a bit confusing. "no strong evidence of PRIMARY topic" was an argument used for the move. The current result means that the city is still considered the primary topic. Could you clarify/fix your statement? kennethaw88 • talk 01:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * A bit dyslectic I was. Good catch, change made. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to rename category
Please see my proposal to rename Category:Montana military personnel to Category:American military personnel from Montana, add other parent categories, and move Kuilix elsewhere Hugo999 (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Salmonidae indef.protection
A comment on the indefinite protection of Salmonidae almost a year ago, which I do hope you'll reconsider. To be honest, I can't see the "persistent vandalism" when checking its revision history. I only see three cases of vandalism by two editors (208.95.51.148 & 208.95.49.140; probably the same person based on WHOIS), but that's well below the usual level of "persistence" considered necessary for indef.protection. Could easily have been solved with a temporary block of that editor and/or short-term protection of the page if s/he continued. Also a fairly low traffic page with no reason to assume that this will change in the future (WP:NO-PREEMPT). Very little earlier IP vandalism on that page; essentially a couple of edits separated by many months/years and all things that were very easy to solve by a simple revert (no sneaky vandalism or multi-edit vandalism that is a pain to clean up). If using that extremely low threshold for indef.protection you could protect pretty much every page, which would be questionable considering wiki's "The Encyclopedia everyone can edit" clause. Anyhow, the Salmonidae article says 13 species of Thymallus. Although the taxonomy remains a bit of a mess (rather like other salmonid genera), there are now 14 Thymallus per FishBase, the primary taxonomic authority for species on wiki. Catalog of Fishes also has 14, but with some minor difference compared to FishBase. Would have updated it, but the indef. protection prevented it. Regards, 62.107.217.63 (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Protection removed. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, updated (also Parahucho → Sakhalin taimen). 62.107.213.65 (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Jock Scott fly
I am baffled by the suggestion of copyright issues. It is true that I copied the expressions "one of the butterfly patterns of the Victorian era" "created this enduring pattern" "considered a masterpiece in harmony and proportion" and with a punctuation change "reputedly the most famous, and most killing of flies". These are all very short ordinary phrases in common language, and evidently fair dealing under copyright law. You are, as ever of course, welcome to alter them if you dissent. The pattern write-up is of course taken from Wikipedia, not from elsewhere. Deipnosophista (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hi Mike...I was wondering if maybe Bridger Mountains (Montana) should actually be titled Bridger Range. I was thinking this discussion occurred before but can't remember when.--MONGO 07:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. Acted upon --Mike Cline (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool. Also...many thanks for those two fine panoramic images. Great to see those...makes me long for home.--MONGO 17:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Rejected move of Gonzo (Muppet)
Hi, Mike. Can you explain why you closed Talk:Gonzo (Muppet) as "Not moved"? Neither of the comments in opposition was relevant to the discussion. Given these clear shortcomings, I don't understand why the move request wasn't relisted. -- Powers T 00:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One asserted that the move was a good one based on an irrelevant Google Books search. The only thing the Google Books search demonstrates is that "Gonzo" is more common than "The Great Gonzo". That is irrelevant because "Gonzo" is not an available title. Disambiguation is necessary; the only question is whether it should be parenthetical or natural. The Google Books results don't provide any data to support either conclusion.
 * The other bafflingly claimed that "the other title" (presumably "The Great Gonzo") was not "really disambiguation". That user also claimed that "The Great Gonzo" was not a commonly used name, but provided no evidence of that, despite my presentation of evidence that it is.


 * . Two points. 1) As there was no explicit support for the move (other than the nom) and clear opposition, not moving the article is a reasonable conclusion as closers should refrain taking sides in the discussion. Relisting would not have changed much in my opinion.  2) There is an extenuating fact that was not mentioned in the discussion, unknown my me at the time: journalist Hunter S. Thompson was also known as The Great Gonzo as he created the Gonzo journalism style, a fact supported by RS.   I don't know how that might weigh in on this title discussion because clearly there would be ambiguity between the two if this title was changed. There was nothing in my close that prevents another RM with more evidence for your position, but I caution about beating the dead horse if similar or additional opposition arises.. --Mike Cline (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, though, I don't think the opposition should be considered "clear" when the arguments presented (remember, it's about strength of argument, not number of bolded words) were irrelevant to the actual decision. Furthermore, if you think "not moving the article" is the reasonable result, then the page should be moved back to The Great Gonzo, where it was located for a long time before it was moved without discussion to Gonzo (Muppet). The status quo ante should prevail in the absence of consensus, shouldn't it? Powers T 23:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Status Quo Ante argument is relevant on a title that was moved a year ago as "uncontroversial" by a respected admin. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I admit I don't understand why it was deemed uncontroversial. It should have been discussed. Powers T 00:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sport fishing on the Thompson, Steelhead
Hi Mike, this is Patrick - we worked together on the Education program working group a while back. Hope you are well! I've been very slowly trying to get my local river up in British Columbia, the Thompson, up to GA level. I was starting in on a section about fish conservation and sport fishing, and remembered this is your area of expertise after looking at the rainbow trout article. As I'm no angler, I thought I'd drop a line (!) and see if you have any time/interest in helping with that section. The story of the declining steelhead runs is interesting, if depressing. Anyways, glad to see you're still on-wiki, best - The Interior  (Talk) 16:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Glad to help. There are plenty of sources and am always up for a challenge.  --Mike Cline (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, Mike! The Interior  (Talk) 18:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Redo Laayoune Move
Dear Mike Back in May 2015 you moved Laayoun as per the approved discussion around NPOV usage around the name of this city: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:El-Aai%C3%BAn#Rename_to_Most_Common_English_Form_.28Laayoun.2FLayoune.29_from_non-used_Spanish_form Some POV editors have moved it back to the Spanish name. Would you kindly reinstitute the move? collounsbury (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just realized I could do it myself and so have done so. collounsbury (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Moratorium expiration date on Trump-related articles
The banner on Talk:Trump and some other pages says "July 16, 2017". If the moratorium is six months, shouldn't the date be "August 16, 2017"? --George Ho (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks George, math was never my strong suit. I'll change it. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Photo from Internet Archive


Hi Mike,

I'm a little bit concerned about the quality of this photo. The scan quality is just very bad. May you be so kind to find a replacement?

Best regards, Meinhattan (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FederationofFlyFishersLogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:FederationofFlyFishersLogo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I recognize that photograph as coming from Edmund Davis's "Salmon Fishing on the Grand Cascapedia," p.p. (1904). I am familiar with the book having written an introductory essay for the 1994 British reprint edition. It is obviously, at tis point, in the public domain. --David Zincavage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venator48 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed updates to Pitney Bowes article
Hi, Mike Cline. I saw your name at WikiProject Philately and thought I'd reach out with a specific request. You may or may not be interested, but I've proposed an expanded and updated Pitney Bowes article on behalf of the company, which has had quite a fascinating history! I've saved my draft in full here, and submitted an edit request at Talk:Pitney Bowes to update the infobox and add the proposed "Overview" section. Given my conflict of interest, I will not edit the article directly and seek uninvolved editors to review the draft for accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability. Is this something you might be willing to help with?

Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CalTrout Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:CalTrout Logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mike
Are you still editing or just on a hiatus?--MONGO 06:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of cemeteries in Powder River County, Montana


The article List of cemeteries in Powder River County, Montana has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "A list of non-notable cemeteries. Not everything that exists or existed needs to be catalogued."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Fram (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of cemeteries in Powder River County, Montana for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of cemeteries in Powder River County, Montana 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/List of cemeteries in Powder River County, Montana 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. Fram (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Courses Modules are being deprecated
Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Education noticeboard/Archive 18.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yellowstone cutthroat trout page
HI Mike, I work on Yellowstone cutthroat trout conservation and want to offer some constructive advice on improving the Wikipedia page on this critter. I don't have the patience or time to learn the script to make edits, hyperlinks to defined text, or add citations. Would it be possible for me to send you a Word document with proposed edits and rationale?

You had asked me several years ago if I was in Montana. I live and work in Livingston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YCTbiologist (talk • contribs) 22:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Fly fishing target species has been nominated for discussion
Category:Fly fishing target species, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 05:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 00:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Questions for Wikipedia editors
I was thinking of supplying short entries on the history of individual Classic Salmon Fly Patterns. In fact, I would contend that a fair number of trout flies also deserve individual Wikipedia entries discussing their origins history and use. At the present time, only larger, more general articles exist. Do you have a problem with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venator48 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yale Party of the Right
A disambiguation issue arose connected with my referencing "The Party of the Right" in my edit of the entry on Professor William Marshner.

At the present time, the Party of the Right is treated only as one of several parties in the Yale Political Union in Wikipedia. The actual situation is more complex. The Party of the Right was founded in 1952 by members of the Conservative Party dissatisfied with that Party's leadership's lack of actual Conservatism. Over the decades, the Party of the Right has evolved into much more than a mere Political Union party. The Political Union essentially expired during the 1980s and the Party of the Right (which was still healthy) actually revived the Union and rebuilt its parties in its own image. The Party of the Right, in the course of 60+ years and many undergraduate generations, has evolved into a fraternity and, more recently, into a 4-year equivalent (just like St. Anthony's Hall) of a Yale Senior Society. The Party of the Right is today an endowed and landed society with its own house, on Elm Street, next door to the Manuscript Senior Society.

I think the Party of the Right deserves it own independent Wikipedia entry, but I anticipate objections to an entry separate from the Yale Political Union (which I have, herewith, attempted to justify). And I anticipate constant hostile editing and vandalism from representatives of rival Yale Political Union parties, as well as from members of groups on the Left.

What is your opinion?

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Proposed deletion of File:TallapoosaRiverCoosaCountyLine.jpg


The file File:TallapoosaRiverCoosaCountyLine.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused low-res personal image with hard-coded caption"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 00:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)