User talk:Mike Cline/Archive 2

Autoreviewer
Hi, after seeing one of your articles at newpage patrol, I was surprised to see that an editor who contributes such interesting well written articles hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin?
Mike, I don't think you're an admin are you? It would be my honor to nominate you. I think the tools would assist you at times and I can see no reason why you shouldn't have them.--MONGO 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded at my talk here.--MONGO 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike...just wanted to point out a couple things that may come up...they will probably question why you don't use the edit summaries when you make an edit...that's the space below the editing window marked as such...summaries are helpful to those doing recent changes patrol and it is encouraged that admin prospectives use them as often as possible...they will also ask you what type of admin duties you plan on helping out with...such as cleaning out pages that are marked for deletion, blocking vandals and page protections...others may question your lack of Wikipedia namespace contributions, such as to arbitration pages, and elsewhere...I think any good faith user that has a minimal of controversy and a good track record such as you deserves to have admin tools even if you plan on using them infrequently...I definitely want to nominate you, but want to prepare you for these issues which will probably come up. Maybe hash out some answers here to me and perhaps read through the Guide to requests for adminship...I'll be back online Wednesday 2/3/2010 to complete the nomination and send you the link so you can answer the q's and I can then, perhaps by Thursday or by this weekend place your nomination up for review by the community.--MONGO 01:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike, you may (or may not to avoid drama) wish to watchlist Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents--MONGO 01:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * MONGO - Thanks - I will study up. Here's my first cut at the basic answers and to the two potential issues you brought up.

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in? A: As a new admin, my first focus would be learning the various tools and roles that admins play in WP and how best I can apply them to my WP routine. I must say it took me at least a year as an active editor to gain confidence my ability to contribute to WP in a constructive and productive way, adhering to but using WP policies and guidelines to the advantage of the encyclopedia. As an active admin, I would most likely and eagerly participate in WP:NPP to help editors quickly understand the application of policies and guidelines as well as ensure worthy content is retained and un-worthy content isn’t. WP:CSD is also an area where I will work as many admins in the past have helped me keep my user space cleaned up in a timely manner. 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why? A: I must say that my collective work on articles related to Fly fishing and Yellowstone National Park, especially its exploration and history, is my best work. Hayden Geological Survey of 1871 is just one of many Yellowstone articles I have created. Especially in the last two years, I believe my contributions to WP have been extraordinarily well organized, sourced and encyclopedic. 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? A: The last two years of my editing experience in WP have essentially been un-stressful, primary because I understand WP policies, guidelines, the basic content cycle of the encyclopedia and the communities of editors and admins that make it a reality. Content and guidelines will change. When those changes are inconsistent with policy, they can and usually are changed back. Vandalism, although very tedious at times can be reverted. Bad grammar can be improved. Inconsistent article organization can be fixed. Today, when editors make changes that are suspect, I usually engage them thus: with some advice on the facts and sourcing. Done constructively, this produces little or no stress on my part, yet helps other editors make better edits. I must say that my 1st year editing WP did become stressful, for the very reason that I did not fully understand all the relevant policies and guidelines and the implications they had on edits I was making. My first deletion debate was very stressful and the encyclopedia lost a good article, but it was a great learning experience. Subsequent deletion debates were much less stressful because I had taken the time to understand WP policies, guidelines and the community much better. That, in my opinion, is the key to reducing personal stress as an editor, (or admin for that matter)—understand how WP works. As an admin I would continue to broaden my understand in the SYSOPS world as well as mentor editors in the ways of WP. Answers to questions if asked. - Many of your edits do not include edit summaries, Why? A: This is an obvious shortcoming, but one that is easily corrected. Although it is partially due to a lack of discipline on my part, I suspect it has much more to do with my editing style and routine. When I create new articles, create major new content for existing articles (or for that matter, completely re-write existing articles), I do it in my user space. It’s there that I can ensure that everything is well organized, sourced, images (loaded in Commons and linked) and templates working. In my user space, edit summaries are not even an afterthought. I work on WP in 2-6 hour blocks at home and am completely engrossed in getting the content right. When I am satisfied that the article is at the 95-100% level, I create it in the WP article space. This explains the relatively large number of deleted edits in my edit count. This cut and paste approach generally requires a few additional edits, (including wiki-linking in other articles) and this is where I usually fail to create an edit summary when I am quickly finalizing my edits. I recognize the usefulness of Edit Summaries to the editor and admin community and vow to improve this aspect of my WP contributions. - You’ve made relatively few contributions to the WP mainspace, Why? A. As a general rule, I’ve been a content editor because that is how I felt I can best contribute to WP. I have participated in AfDs at times, especially when I am away from my library and cannot effectively work on content. On the guideline side, I have and will continue to be an actively monitor and participant in List guidelines, especially as it relates to bibliographies and other subject related lists. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike...was tied up at work Wednesday but will commence the Rfa for you this evening (Thursday 2/4)...I'll post the link for you to complete and once that is done, we'll submit it for review...I think the answers above are more than adequate. In answer to your question at my talk about the admin noticeboards...basically the main noticeboard is used as a place for admins to discuss things related to admin issues, whereby the incidents noticeboard is used for all to post comments and requests for help from admins about issues regarding content, minor disputes between editors, etc.--MONGO 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mike...here's the link to your nomination...contact me when you have answered the Q's...I'll check back in here in a couple of hours...--MONGO 01:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 MONGO would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then [ contact MONGO] to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/Mike Cline. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.


 * MONGO - Nomination accepted and questions answered. Appreciate the support.  Let me know if there's anything else I need to address before you post the page.  Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk)
 * Looks good...will post it now if you like.--MONGO 03:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Done...! Watchlist Rfa we created and/or Requests for adminship...I had trouble figuring out the EDIT STATS template on the Rfa talkpage...not sure what I did there, but it didn't format right it seems...the front side is fine though...I'll check back in each day and see how you're doing...good luck to you...you deserve it and I know you'll do a fine job.--MONGO 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's up and running...User:7 fixed the edit stats issue on the talkpage...so thats good to go.--MONGO 04:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * MONGO - Answered all the optional questions. Would appreciate any feedback you might have.  Do I need to address specifically any of the opposition comments or wait until someone posed a specific question?  Thanks again.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally it is bad form to address oppositions unless they are asking for clarifications from you...seems a few other editors are discussing issues with opposers, myself included. Seems the opposers have valid issues, none of which are of concern to me though but for some they must be...like I said in my comments at the Rfa in opening and elsewhere, based on your track record, I see no evidence you would misuse tools and I know if you do find yourself in an area you aren't yet comfortable with, you'll get guidance from someone who is. If asked direct questions at the Rfa, it is best to answer them though.--MONGO 05:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Two other editors have some questions posted at your Rfa...in case you didn't see them...I think it stands now at 78% support....I can't really explain the opposition frankly.--MONGO 12:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Glacier National Park Overhaul
If nothing else...I plan on an overhaul for the Glacier National Park (U.S.) article...its a featured article I helped get to that level almost 4 years ago...and that park will be 100 years old this May...I plan on at least stubbing a hundred associated articles related to the mountains lakes, glaciers and other things the park has...you might want to help with that, even though I know your focus is Yellowstone country.--MONGO 05:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * More than glad to contribute as I need to learn more about Glacier anyway. I think the first thing I'll do is create a Mountains of Glaciers National Park list like I did for Yellowstone.  This will get those puppys organized and we can see what needs to get done more clearly with the mountains.  Lakes and such can follow. PS: saw your rebuttal on the RfA- most civil.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Am starting the mountain list here--Mike Cline (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Finished the East side, hope to get the West side done tonight. Are there three named ranges in Glacier--Livingston, Lewis and Wilson? (those are the one listed in GNIS). Organization of the list might be cleaner by ranges? or maybe by drainages--Pacific, Atlantic and Hudson Bay.  Thoughts--Mike Cline (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bozeman, Montana
Thanks for catching the vandalism :-) I have to say, this edit is definitely obvious — did you see that the vandal's population figure in the infobox was 10,000 greater than his population in the text?  Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I moved to Bozeman because there isn't 100,000 people out here--it would be scary if there were--Mike Cline (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Template help
I was looking at your RfA nomination and see you're pretty good with templates. RfX-notice has a couple of incorrect links, but I generally don't edit templates if it's not immediately obvious where to put the fix, so I thought I'd ask your help on that. Specifically the links to "about RfA" and "about RfB" do not have a space in the template, and so do not bring the user to the correct part of the page. Should be a simple enough fix for someone in the know.--otherlleft 17:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Twin Cities Wire
Hello Mike Cline. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Twin Cities Wire, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7: A7 diesn't apply to newspapers and magazines. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
If I'm the first one, it's only cause I saw your changed status just fly by on Recent changes. Good luck in your new job--you can forget about fishing, and instead start tackling unsourced BLPs. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats. Consensus having been reached, you are now an administrator. Feel free to check out the admins' how-to guide, reading list and new admin school if you are unclear on anything, or to ask me or any admin. -- Pakaran 04:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Well deserved 7  04:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On a personal note, if you feel yourself burning out on admin tasks, do work on content - which you have done a great deal of. It's what we're here for, and some of us, myself included, would do well to remember that. -- Pakaran 04:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or just go fishing! ;) BTW, nice to see a Trojan make it this far up the food chain. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. You'll need to hurry if you are to take up Drmies' kind BLP suggestion. There's barely 40,000 (?) unsourced BLPs left. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

From me too, well done. When I passed my RfA I had very little project-space work to point to; you'll do just fine :) Feel free to drop in on my talk page any time. All the best, EyeSerene talk 09:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, at first I thought your RfA wouldn't pass the mark but I felt that you had done just enough to show potential as a good admin aside from the good content building so I am pleased the community was positive. Hope to see you doing some well considered work with those tools. Polargeo (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations Mike, I'm sure you'll do fine. I'm also happy to answer questions if I can! Olaf Davis (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that I did feel you weren't quite ready for the task. But that's irrelevant now, as the community as a whole is confident in your abilities - I fully support you being an administrator and wish you the best of luck. Regards, decltype (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Thanks for your message on my talk. Best wishes for your new responsibilities. '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  10:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me as well! I would say that you can ask me for advice about adminship, but I'm the 3rd newest admin (now that you've got the mop), so I'm not that knowledgeable! All I would advise is that you do what I am doing - going for obvious admin actions (I've done CSDs involving obvious copyvios, user requests for deletions in own space, etc - plus a few obvious-concensus AfD closures!). -- Phantom Steve /talk &#124;contribs \ 12:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Over my morning cup of coffee I got the good news. Congratulations to our newest Admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, I'm sure you will prove those of us opposed wrong in every way, and I look forward to you rubbing it in my face :). One thing, don't throw yourself into administering too much, keep doing what you already do so well, its clear you enjoy it. To much admin stuff and you can grow to hate this place at times--Jac 16888 Talk 12:50, 12 February 201 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for the message. Just to let you know that although I did express some doubts, I never thought you would break the wiki or delete the main page :) Congratulations, and best of luck from now on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks for the note, and best wishes. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on your adminship Mike! All the best,   S warm  ( Talk ) 20:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)



Good news
Sanity prevailed in the end so congrats on the Rfa success. Looking over your lists of mountains and glaciers...wow..great job and this will really help with coverage of these items...I shall commence with this almost immediately...I thought one glacier Baby Glacier (Montana) was already done, but that was actually a Baby Glacier in Wyoming...so I'll need to move that already completed article to a (Wyoming) and maybe we'll need a disambiguation page which I can do...whew...odd I havge seen so many folks say that most articles that can be written have already been done, but that isn't the case for geographic and many biota pages...again, congrats and thanks for the lists...will touch base with you soon.--MONGO 00:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike...here's a speedy delete for you...I messed up and created the Baby Glacier (disambiguation) page which can be deleted, please...we now have a proper page Baby Glacier which will act as a quick link page...thanks!--MONGO 16:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mike...ah, the power! Back online this evening...commence stubbing then...and much cleanup and enhancement needed at the GNP main page I have to do...--MONGO 17:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops
Oops, sorry, I edited a bird list of yours slightly without noticing it was in userspace. I hope you don't mind. (I know I would; I hate it when people fiddle with my userspace.) Anyway, congratulations on your recent adminship! Frutti di  Mare  01:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Good edits, thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I request you to delete my user page with the whole story, because I do not want a user page files should private information. Thank you immediately. --Žiedas (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh
A casualty of cut-n-paste tinkering, thanks for catching it! Stan (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ewwww, I don't see line-by-line citations for people-on-stamps lists catching on anytime soon. The information is widely available from multiple sources and totally uncontroversial, so you're talking a bunch of extra work with little value - armed with only year and whatever catalog they happen to have, any literate person can verify in a couple of minutes.  Let's put our line-by-line citation effort into the potentially-controversial articles and statements. Stan (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Marshall's Hotel
Hello! Your submission of Marshall's Hotel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! . Not a problem per se, but the DYK hook for Marshall's Hotel could be better IMHO. Nice article, anyhow. :) --doncram (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

me and lists
Guess I was mildly grumpy but hopefully not too bitey. At least i didn't delete List of Macedonian philosophers. Maybe your essay would be helpful as well to another editor whose list I meanwhile restored, List of IWW union shops, but i didn't want to outright plagiarize the message...Cheers. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

speedy requested
Mike, can you speedy Lake Bowman...nothing connects to it at present...--MONGO 17:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done--Mike Cline (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused by this. It looked to me like a valid redirect that was blanked by someone other than the creator, so I have declined the speedy and restored the redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a redirect created by a page move from Lake Bowman to Bowman Lake. I thought MONGO wanted to move the article back to Lake Bowman--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope...there is no article by the name of Lake Bowman...the redirect page was meaningless since it wasn't needed...the lake is known as Bowman Lake on every map and source.--MONGO 17:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right sorry. I've hatnoted to disambiguate your Bowman Lake from Bowman Lake State Park.  Lake Bowman is a valid redirect though, as redirects cover alternates that people might reasonably use, and someone not knowing the area might look for Lake Bowman. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood...all that makes sense.--MONGO 18:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

May I ask for an advise please?
Hi Mike, yesterday I finished up working on List of List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners nominated it for DYK, and.... the article was nominated for deletion. Today I finished up working on Ronald Levy. I nominated it for DYK too. May I please ask you what is your opinion, would this article be nominated for the deletion also? If so, I'd rather take it off DYK nomination, maybe then it will have a longer life on Wikipedia:) Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mike, thank you for all the advises you gave me at my talk page including but not limited to stay civil :) Mike, I've learned English not so long ago. It is hard for me to write in English. My experience in writing articles is none. Could you please change the article yourself simply because I am sure you can do much better job than I ever will. If you have no time to do it, I will try to do my best to follow the advises you gave to me (including to stay civil :)) Thank you very much for your time and understanding!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Something which may be of interest to you
User talk:Mikecline426. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the headups--Mike Cline (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David C. Hëwitt
Hello, you relisted Articles for deletion/David C. Hëwitt today. I would like to request that you revisit the decision to relist versus deleting the article (I did verify that you are an admin). Granted, I am not an admin myself and don't have the best handle on consensus, but I do think it's quite clear that there is a consensus to delete this article, for reasons I outlined on the discussion page. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the keep votes appear to be from SPAs and many (9) trusted WP editors have voted delete with useful commentary. I highly recommend that you revisit your re-listing. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Mike Cline/Articles Under Contemplation/Jewel Geyser
Hi Mike. I just wanted to ask you if you have some hidden cache of resources regarding the article in the title, as IMO, it's done.

A10 tag on SIMILARTREATMENTISVALID
I don't know the nuances of what is considered acceptable for CSD A10 (as its a new criterion) so I'm not going to remove the tag; but doesn't it only apply to pages in the mainspace, rather than the project space?  Them From  Space  22:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry
Hi Mike. Sorry for my harsh judgements. I suppose I just generally thought that you were a bit off the mark with your RfA summary. But your input was still usefull as the perception of all of those involved is important and I should have given more time to your arguments. Polargeo (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

RFA
I have answered your questions and look forward to your response.-- SKATER  Speak. 03:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My RFA
I would like to thank you for contributing to my RFA, and thank you even more for the advice you gave. Sadly, I'm not the strongest article writer out there, but I will try to improve my presence in article space and keep your advice in mind. All the best,-- SKATER  Speak. 00:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedies needed
Hi Mike...I made a wee bit of a mess properly titling/retitling one mountain..can you speedy

Bear Mountain, Glacier County, Montana ‎ and Bear Mountain (Montana)...the article is now Bear Mountain (Glacier County, Montana) which reflects the standard format the WikiProject Mountains uses on peaks...thanks!--MONGO 19:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * heh..somebody beat ya to it..best wishes!--MONGO 21:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your question at Elockid's RfA
Hi there! Firstly, congrats on your adminship, I seem to have missed congratulating you earlier, welcome to the club (and any questions/help etc, hit me up)!

Onto your question at Elcokid's RfA, specifically question 5. I'm curious as to where you would put WP:RPP, as it doesn't neatly fit into any of your categories; it has elements of b and d, and even a on occaision. I ask, because I've grown a little concerned of late at the frequent long delays in getting requests actioned; I frequently start my wikiday clearing a backlog of 25/30/40+ requests. Hardly any candidates mention RPP in their rationale for adminship, and I've been thinking about developing an RPP set of questions. However, your categories might help that. Let me know your thoughts! Ged UK  13:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question and offer of future advice, I am sure I'll take advantage at some point. First, the motivation behind the overall question is to see how interested the RfA candidate is in Article Improvement and Mentoring new editors.  They all want the tools, but don't realize their most useful contribution to WP (IMHO) will be in helping create better editors, especially among the newcomers. Second, and more to your question, is that you could easily reference RPP in both the Vandalism and Dispute departments.  In my limited exposure to the Admin world, my 4 departments might not reflect the complete realm of the Admin world, but they weren't really intended to.  Feel free to plagarize to improve on the concept, bearing in mind that I asked the questions primarily to assess motivation, not skill or experience.  Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! I hope you didn't think i was critcising your questions, I realise why you were asking them, but RPP is an area that impacts on so much here, but hardly anyone mentions it during RfA, AN, ANI or numerous other places. I shall ponder further. I guess the immediate other category of admin task is properly administrative, gnomish work; like DYK, UAA, page move requests, and I suppose RPP. Ged  UK  14:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Montana mountains
Hi Mike, I was wondering if you could correct some of your articles about Montana mountain ranges to just show ALL the counties where the USGS says they are, not simply one...Some of these new articles reflect place names not in common use locally, though who am I to question the USGS? (grin) It is also best to just stick to ONLY what the USGS says on some of these unless you can source them otherwise. Also, do not add location in relationship to cities unless you actually have a source; to say certain things are "near" a particular city may mean you are off by a hundred miles, (for example, the Haystack Mountain referenced in the Flathead Alps entry is actually in or near the Bob Marshall Wilderness, http://www.trails.com/topo.aspx?trailid=HGR107-055 which is a good two hours from Missoula, note edit to the article.  Also to list ranges as only part of a single county is, at best, questionable as the bulk of the range may actually fall in another.  You may find this page useful as a secondary source:  http://nris.mt.gov/gis/gisdatalib/downloads/mtrange.pdf -- it doesn't include all ranges, but it verifies the location of the major ones.  You also may find use for it's "parent" page, http://nris.mt.gov/gis/gisdatalib/mtmaps.aspx And finally, the definitive source, the official state highway map, here:  http://nris.mt.gov/gis/gisdatalib/downloads/2007_2008_mt_highway_map.pdf  Montanabw (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And per your other message, I have been in the Long and Short Pines, and I can assure you they exist on the Montana side of the border. I'll go look for a source for you. Montanabw (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a few sources here...(there may be more than one range named "Long Pines" in the USA just as there are almost a dozen features named "Haystack Mountain": http://www.travelmt.com/mt-cities-Ekalaka.html, http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/brochure_turkey.html, http://www.placenames.com/us/p1688744/, http://www.multimap.com/maps/?zoom=13&countryCode=US&lat=45.68889&lon=-104.22778  http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/custer/recreation/D3.shtml  I'll grant you the Short Pines, though I suspect the confusion arises because the Ekalaka Hills may be called the Short Pines in come circles...but I cannot locate the guide that says so and I cannot yet find good USGS quad maps that will lay them out (I found a poor USGS quad for Haystack Mountain, at least...).   Montanabw (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All the above sources confirm what GNIS supports: The Ekalaka Hills, Chalk Buttes and Long Pines are all separate island ranges in close proximity to Ekalaka--Chalk is SW, Ekalaka Hills is S/SE/NE and Long Pines is 20+ miles to the SE. Even the articles discuss them separately. This is confirmed by the Montana Hwy Map and the Delorme Montana Atlas.  The Short Pines are located here: 45.39472°N, -103.90694°W.  According to GNIS there is only one Long Pines range in the U.S. and its in Montana.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, the Long Pines are in Montana (your talk page comment I initially read as claiming the Long Pines were in South Dakota, but I see that wasn't quite what you said), and per the talk page at Ekalala hills, I'll grant that the name Ekalaka Hills may be used interchangably with the Short Pines as a local name (Some of the tourism sites still do, not sure if I listed any above though...). And of course, the county in South Dakota that has a "Short Pines" range is right next to Carter County, MT, so what I wish we had was a good USGS quad to line these all up...   Montanabw (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Mike, best to call "hills" hills and "ranges" or "mountains" mountains in Montana--the designation isn't formal, it has a lot more to do with the degree of relief of a given feature compared to the surrounding area, but local use has some grounds for respect (and a perusal of wiki's articles suggest there is no hard and fast cutoff between hills and mountains in the US anyway). I think is also best not to use "small" very often (I left it in a couple articles where the range in question is unquestionably small but also still a "range" and not just a set of foothills). Comparing the minor ranges of Western Montana to the island ranges in the east, well, it's just too relative...best to just avoid the qualifiers. The rules for naming Montana hills and mountains are also not entirely consistent, you sort of have to go with the local flow -- the Sweet Grass Hills really do look like isolated mountains, but they get demoted because they are relatively close to the "real" mountains in Glacier Park, while our friends the Long Pines probably are more hills than mountains, but they are the only relief in the area, so they get, um, "elevated" (pardon the pun). You've found some stuff so obscure it will probably take topo maps to pin down as to what's a sub-range of what, so in the meantime, I just tried to fill in a few blanks. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you want to get the local take on any of this stuff. I don't have the time to really get into these articles, but I can give you my gut check. Montanabw (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

DUDE! Sweetgrass Hills and Sweet Grass Hills are the same place, now there are two articles...need to merge. ;-)   Montanabw (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Toddst1 (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Glacier NP nominated for main page
Hi Mike...been pretty busy at work...wanted to let you know that Glacier NP has been nominated by me to appear on the mainpage on May 11, 2010...the link to view the process is here. Hope all is well with you!--MONGO 21:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind..I nominated too soon...will redo on 4/22 or so.--MONGO 21:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh..its back up...I have been slowly going through the article adding where we need further references and updating and double checking the existing ones...you'll see citation needed at various places...but you can comment on the main page nomination if you like, but I mentioned this to you not to spam you or solicit your support, but to let you know I am still, slowly, perhaps "glacially" even still trying to improve this article and add stubs related to it....I thought you might be interested in knowing that this is an almost never ending process...one of the neat things about this website.--MONGO 00:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing one! :-)
Sweet Grass Hills. Redlinked all over the place. Want to get one up that will benefit several other articles the instant it goes live, that's your baby. And yeah, they're hills. Really noticable hills, but hills. ;-) Montanabw (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you!  Montanabw (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hows this?
I added this small detail to the Glacier NP article...it may need expansion but not sure we should go too overboard on history stuff...I appreciate your bring this up as it does enhance the article to know more about this guy.--MONGO 02:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

UNIVERSES
Hi, I have created an encyclopaedic version of this article without the promotional guff. You can see this at User:Mredruiz/UNIVERSES II. If you are happy that this meets Wikipedia criteria, I shall move it into main space shortly. Please give me a shout if you have any problems with this. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't noticed it was a G7 deletion, I was concerned as the version in the original editor's user space was definitely promotional. Sorry to have troubled you. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD closes
Would you include a period after your closes ( keep. instead of keep )? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Page moves
I am not fond of it when editors move pages and leave a hundred plus articles left routed to the new page via a redirect...after your list Mountains and mountain ranges in Glacier National Park (U.S.) was changed to Mountains and mountain ranges of Glacier National Park (U.S.) here it left dozens and dozens of pages I had to reedit to avoid the redirect...now your Mountains and mountain ranges in Yellowstone National Park has also had the "in" replaced with "of" and that has created who knows how many redirect link that need to be cleaned up...these can be checked by clicking the "what links here" link in the toolbox to the left...and looks to be less than 100 so thats not too bad, but it is a lot of busy work and work that should be handled by whoever does the page move...also going through all the various mountain articles related to Glacier NP, the older ones all need to be updated as some lack inline cites..also, the MyTopo reference I have been using does not link directly to the quad map for a peak, but instead to a pretty much blank green map of vagueness...a click on the mytopo link then takes one to the quad...so I will probably return to using TopoQuest for my quad link references...--MONGO 19:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree and have been making the changes as I come on them. Did you send this note to the guy that made the moves: User talk:Good Olfactory?--Mike Cline (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hum...I haven't...I'm not generally good at being polite about such things...not that it is that big a deal...but I tend to spend my time cleaning up redirect pages if I make a page move...so I guess I expect others to always do the same. It's done...but I only did the GNP redirects and haven't yet touched Yellowstone redirects.--MONGO 22:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A link for Dome Mountain...I used the URL in the address bar..if you click their "click here to get a link for this map" tab at the bottom of the MyTopo page, the link only goes to a lousy map, not the quad. I just got through redoing all the mountain stubs I had created...otherwise I prefer this quad link to the one TopoQuest uses since it is easier to reposition the map in the window they provide...I am also still wondering why USGS quads and GNIS data on elevations are so divergent...I've been sticking with the quads.--MONGO 22:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

good going
Nice job on saving the list--Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability Essays
The essay you cited does not seem to be a wikipedia policy... I'm not sure how much bearing it has... WikiManOne (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

War of Ideas
Lt.Col Cline: Thanks for your advocacy of keeping the Wikipage "War of Ideas" up for further discussion. I think its a page that needs work but feel that the general concept, that being that the the War of Ideas is a clash of opposing ideals, ideologies, or concepts through which nations or groups use strategic influence to promote their interests abroad in a way that improves their national security, is a vital one. Any way, "Libertatem Defendimus" and good luck with the fishing.--Friedrich Dusseldorf (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Friedrich Dusseldorf

Declined CSD on Turbinella (disambiguation)
Quoting your message from User:Snek01's page: "I declined the CSD-G1 because this doesn't seem like nonsense. Is there another reason here?--Mike Cline (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)"


 * I think that perhaps Snek means that it is a crazy idea to make a disambiguation page for, or list on a disambiguation page, individual species epithets such as turbinella. In biology, people virtually never refer to a species only by its specific epithet, because that is very incorrect and confusing usage. You might refer to the snail Engina turbinella as E. turbinella if you had previously used the whole name in a piece of writing, but you never, ever, refer to it as just "turbinella", which would be a meaningless usage. It's rather like referring to New York City, as just "New".


 * Nono64 enjoys making disambig pages, but it perhaps seems not helpful to generate a lot of pages for things that are never used as legitimate words by themselves. This is a hard point to explain if you are not a biologist, so if I have not made it clear what I am trying to say, please ask me again.


 * Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Georgia-Cumberland Academy
An article that you have been involved in editing, Georgia-Cumberland Academy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Glacier NP article
Mike...stuck at work and my setup makes it hard for me to edit wiki from here...please help watch over the Glacier NP article as it is on the mainpage today...thanks...mongo
 * Will do, its getting a lot of attention both good and bad. Great job pulling this all together.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just now able to log in and......its GONE already...saw it mainpaged via my blackberry...not really the same...its not about me of course, just wanted the park to get more attention via our article and hopefully some floks browsing through the web stumbled on the article as it was mainpaged...thanks for keeping tabs on it...I'll shoot you an email.--MONGO 02:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Brown (media strategist)
Hi, I'm pleased that you 'relisted' Andrew Brown, although I still don't get why it was marked for deletion with some daft argument (in my opinion) by Off2riorob, who then performed an abrupt Non-admin closure, which (ironically) I'm not sure is completely legitimate having just noticed this [] page: "Inappropriate closures: Non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: "The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the deletion debate." Anyway, c'est la vie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James317a (talk • contribs) 11:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of most popular cat names (2nd nomination)
The close here reads very much like an opinion rather than an appraisal of the arguments raised. As such, I'd like to ask you to either reconsider or to relist this. I don't have a problem with explicitly inclusionist admins closing contentious AfDs if there's a solid line of reasoning based on the arguments raised, but that's not how your summary read. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I second Thumperward's request. I've mentioned in the past (at your RfA and recently on Gavin Collins' talk page) that your opinion on list articles is too far out of line with consensus for you to close these debates. Frankly I'm suprised nobody else has brought this up. This close in particular reads like editorializing and would be best suited for an opinion within the debate rather than a closing remark.  Them  From  Space  15:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I third Thumperward's request. I don't see any compelling consensus for a Keep here, and your reasoning behind the close appears to inject a lot of your own opinion rather than impartially analyzing the !votes for consensus.  Especially in the case that there were 9 delete votes and 5 keep votes, there ought to be a compelling explanation for why the Keep's reasonings were more sound than the Delete's.  At best, this should have been closed as No Consensus, or it should have been relisted for more opinions.    talk 01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, we must consider that the history for the AfD shows that you posted a closing template, and then posted your decision a mere 7 minutes later. We can only assume that it took you 7 minutes to read the approximately 3000 words of opinions, look at all of the external links and sources provided in the opinions, interpret the consensus, and write your opinion.  From this we can assume that you skimmed over the !votes, didn't look at any of the sources provided, and cobbled together a (fairly ridiculous) closing statement which you (thankfully) later struck through.  Clearly, you knew which way you were going to close the AfD before you even started reading the !votes (and it's clear you weren't reading the AfD prior to posting the closing template, since you were editing a different article only 5 minutes before you posted the closing template).  I'm inclined to take this to DRV unless this is relisted.    talk 02:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mike Cline has posted a response on my talk page refuting my analysis of the timeline of events, and I'll take his word for it. I have, however, challenged the validity of the sources used for this article on Talk:List_of_most_popular_cat_names, as an exercise to show how ridiculous it is to keep this article on Wikipedia.  Perhaps I should have gone to these lengths during the AfD, but I suppose I thought that there was no way the article would have been kept.  Please feel free to join the discussion if you are so inclined.  Thanks.     talk 22:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu)
Sir, thanks for your remark. You might take the pains to look into the lemma Olifants river (Western Cape), where the subject was introduced by dismorodrepanis on 14th May 2010. Maybe that would do as a source. If not, let me know, please!--Letdemsay (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of most popular cat names
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of most popular cat names. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. talk 20:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Archimedes was deleted
Mike, thanks for directing me to your essay, I enjoyed reading and thinking about it. I am no philosopher, but I was wondering whether deletion is not also a philosophy. While the act of deleting is simply a tactic, as you put it, that can be employed to improve the overall quality of the project, many deletionists (but by no means all) seem to be of the opinion that certain information does not belong on wikipedia because it is too frivolous, regardless of whether it is verifiable and (dare we say publicly!) useful to readers. Perhaps I am just getting tripped up because "deletionism" is a philosophy while "deletion" is not, and "inclusion" as you define it is a philosophy. Whenever we choose to retain content, that reflects a philosophy. And apparently the Romans were inclusionists, because they ordered that Archimedes was to be taken alive. Yet he was still deleted! (I guess there were "BLP concerns.") Who doesn't enjoy a good analogy to Greek history? Of course, Herodotus himself, the father of history, has been much maligned for recording what he was told without censoring fanciful tales related to him. But material he recorded and which was dismissed as poppycock was much later recognized as invaluable -- such as evidence that the Phoenicians had circumnavigated Africa. Imagine if Herodotus had been a wikipedia editor, its doubtful much of his content would have survived!--Milowent (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help with the San Francisco Creamery article Mike. Much appreciated. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

re San Francisco Creamery
It's an ice cream stand. Or store. Or something. WP:NOT a directory of individual stores. And it smacks of puffery. However, if you feel it's worthwhile, and as you are a Veteran Editor III, I'll defer to your judgement. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help
Mike,

Thank you so much for taking the time out of your schedule to provide me with the links. I have been looking at them and hopefully will be able to redo the article on Featherlite Trailers I created to be more in line with accepted Wikipedia style. Heartfelt Leaflet (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Societas Europaea Lepidopterologica
Mike, thanks for the encouragement and for your help, especially with the notes. Do you know about a *simple* note tutorial out there? By the way, there is some controversy about the Role of Otakar Kudrna in the founding within the Society, but it adds some interest to the article which is a good thing. I'll try to make the page better, will attempt to add picture next! I would also like to remove this 'Issue-Header', what do you suggest? Greetings from Austria -- Tlmfnw (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Dear Mr. Cline, Thank you for taking the time to look into my dispute. I have explained on the Washington Institute's discussion page why I made my changes. Cobibgantz (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)cobibgantz

Articles for deletion/Maghrebim
Hi Mike I'm a bit concerned that the history of this article contains copy/paste moves of material from other Wikipedia articles without a history merge, which appears to be in violation of our content licensing rules. Could you explain to me how this could be fixed via regular editing? A history merge is traditionally an administrator's task because it requires tools a regular editor can't access.— S Marshall T/C 15:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Glacier NP list of lakes
Hi Mike...I don't know if you already started a list of Lakes of Glacier NP or not, but you create some excellent lists and if you want to take over what I already have listed in one of my subpages, feel free to do so...the info I gathered is what I could find scanning topos and is located here...if you're not interested, I'll try and see if I can generate a list similar to some you already have done...happy 4th to you!--MONGO 21:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured you had something already started...my list linked above is pretty complete but lacks the detail you normally have in your lists...let me know if you want to take what I have or have me complete what you started...safe travels.--MONGO 02:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A new mission
Given that you do up a lot of lists and short articles, have you any interest in doing up some short biographies of historic Montana figures? I've noticed a few gaps: Granville Stuart, Nelson Story, and I noticed that Johnny Grant and Thomas Cruse go to totally different guys than our Montana ones! Montanabw (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wolf reintroduction
Hi Mike...I was employed at Grand Teton NP between 1989 and 1996 (aside from spending one year in that period in Shenandoah NP)...behind the scenes, never published and rarely discussed was the fight between the NPS and the Fish and Wildlife Service over wolf reintroduction. The park service wasn't truly in favor of reintroduction overall since their own wildlife biologists had documented somewhat rare but possibly permanent "omega" loners or small packs of several individuals in the park. The wolf was already protected under the ESA so if indeed the wolf was slowly reestablishing itself in its native range that would have been the optimum situation...there would have been no need for the litigation that ensued from the reintroduction effort and the wolves would have enjoyed somewhat better protection than they ultimately got due to concessions made to regional ranching and related interests. Also behind the reintroduction was the need for the USFWS to justify the expenditures already made and the funding already set aside for reintroduction....Me thinks that natural reintroduction would have happened anyway so long as protective measures had remained in place...we might today have fewer wolves than forced reintroduction has produced, but the overall costs in so many ways may have been avoided...--MONGO 02:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mongo - I think in the long term, the wolf reintroduction is going to make great fodder for researchers examining the real consequences of man's intervention in nature. We are still in a honeymoon period of euphoria about the wolves in Yellowstone, but long term, there are some interesting consequences on the horizon. One of those consequences is the complete disappearance of the Madison River herd of elk.  Its numbers are already down 60%+ since the introduction and some observers postulate that a couple of very severe winters could reduce the herd to unsustainable levels.  One wonders when that happens whether or not the NPS will reintroduce elk into the Madison River valley.  The other consequence will be the inevitable conflict of wolves and humans outside the park.  The park can only sustain so many wolves, and outside the park, they are essentially incompatible with human endeavor. Although Bison once roamed in Omaha, I doubt seriously whether the city council would approve of a 1000 bison running wild in the streets.  Thanks for the support on the History of wolves article.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1000 bison here in Omaha might be preferable to me than the 10 or so lunatics that seem to run our city council...but your point is accurate.--MONGO 03:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Larry Norman
Thank you for your recent comments on the Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Larry Norman page. It caused me to look at your user page. I have now read and appreciate your well-reasoned essays on "Creating a Better List", "Inclusionist's Guide to Deletion Debate", and "Archimedes was Deleted". As a fellow inclusionist, I have found them to be "useful" (not a strong argument for inclusion), and will help me in future article creation and debates for deletion.smjwalsh (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America
Would you mind explaining how this was no consensus? Your rant is completely irrelevant. How were the concerns of the delete side addressed (WP:V, WP:OR)? I intend to take this to DRV if you do not provide a reasonable and relevant closing rationale. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaving the "rant" aside, I think this is the relevant part of the close: A subject with some obvious notability per many keeps below. A title that could be improved. And many who disagree., where the obvious notability is the clue. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  14:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. Since I do not agree with you I've taken this to DRV. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Best close ever, Mike. Some people will just never get it...even when it's explained in simple terms. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice
I have renominated Jehovah's Witnesses reference works for deletion (third-party sourced material already merged to Jehovah's Witnesses publications) at Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah's_Witnesses_reference_works_(2nd_nomination), and have mentioned your previous participation at the first discussion, the result of which was No consensus.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

List of megaprojects
Mike, are you still in-tune with the List of megaprojects? IPs have been having a field day with it lately and just today, one IP made 75 edits including additions of old structures like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Canterbury Cathedral under a new Religious section they decided to create. Most religious entries were really old, one project was even proposed, and they deleted one. I removed the religious entries and a few other changes. Since the criteria is hard to define as recent entries show, should the article be deleted or renamed? I remember you had a proposal earlier. Please let me know what you think here or on the articles discussion page.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

UGA Accidentals keep
Hi there, I am curious as to why you closed the discussion the UGA accidentals as a keep. There were not enough commentators to enjoy a full discussion and, equally, there were an equal number of policy-based votes for keeping and deleting. Can you explain your decision? It would probably be more helpful to Wikipedia if you re-opened the discussion. Thanks--TM 14:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Iron Mask (band)
Thx for your decision, Mike! I'll do my best to improve the article, in order that it finally becomes a part of Wikipedia! Got a little question (this is my 1st wikiarticle): now this article is in my user's space, I will make changes, will provide references and reliable sources - and after that do I have to contact you or anyone from administration to let know about the changes?Dzimozz (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mike! Need a litle consultation. This saturday Iron Mask's songs were placed in rotation by major national radio broadcasting company of Republic of Belarus Radio Minsk. This company is included in the List of international radio broadcasters (also:Broadcasting in the Soviet Union and List of radio stations in Belarus). This can be checked here - Massabrutto - this is the title of national rock/metal radioprogram, that is translated on Radio Minsk every saturday night from 00.00 to 03.00. There also was an interview with the member of Iron Mask Roma Siadletski. Does it meet the notability criteria 1.11: Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network Notability (music)Dzimozz (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mike! As you recommended, I've asked the question about Radio Minsk at WikiProject Metal. Seemed, that nobody contested this notability criteria and project members say that they would probably keep my article))). I also made some corrections according to the recommendations that they provided me with. Will you please check it out here. I dont't really know, who is to take the final decision about the future of the article (to keep in Wikipedia or to delete)? Dzimozz (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mike, I followed your recommendations and advices of guys from Metal Project concernig the format of citations and the Discussion talk page. So, in my opinion, now the article is ready to be re-published. Would you please help me to recreate it in Wikipedia? Regards, all bestDzimozz (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: Iron Mask Categories. Allright, Mike, I'll try to do it, but I can't catch the idea, what are these categories? Would you please explain it to me or probably you can provide some examples? Thx for your concern about the article! Dzimozz (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Cedar Lake (California)
I want to thank you very much. What a wonderful job. I feel so bad, after yelling "HELP". This was my last edit to Cedar Lake. Four hrs. after that edit I was in the hospital getting prepared for an emergency appendectomy. I was just released from the hospital yesterday afternoon. All went well and I am fine. But I still have praise for you and everyone that participated in the AfD. My wife set up my laptop when I got settled in and my browser opens to the last page it was on when shut down. It was Cedar Lake. After I signed in I had a message waiting for me at my talk page, so I went there first, when I came back to cedar lake the first thing I noticed it wasn't flagged for deletion :). What a wonderful "Editors to the Rescue" collaboration. Again Thank You Very Much. Mlpearc   powwow  15:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Huge uncited list
Five deletes and the nominator makes six and three keeps? A worthless uncited list, what rubbish Off2riorob (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Off2riorob - Although I respect your position, the fact that the AfD was on the old side for 3 days, tells me that my close of No Consensus was probably the right one. Otherwise, it would have been closed much earlier.  This one was not as clear cut as you make it.  WP will go on!--Mike Cline (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that it was allowed to go over has any bearing on the outcome whatsoever. There were still comments being added and there was no reason to close in that case. I would have closed it as delete, easy. You can disagree but its a valueless worthless list that attracts BLP violations with no benefit to the project at all, what you do when you close such cases as keep is encourage more crap to be kept and more worthless policy violating lists to be created, and people that waste their time commenting see that it is a waste of their good time and move on. IMO if you are an article rescue worker and an illusionist you would be better not closing AFDs. Off2riorob (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI - I am neither a member of ARS (although I applaud what they do), nor am I an illusionist. I really never caught on to those silly magic tricks when I was kid.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Very amusing I am sure, you know what I meant. I am considering asking for a review, is that ok with you? Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is entirely within your perogative and I will consider this discussion the customary pre-DRV discussion with the admin.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

List of proverbial phrases
What is the dealio with foot note #1?? -- Kendrick7talk 23:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooh. Now I see it. Probably not a terrible practice, but when I just glanced at the refnote I only saw alphabet soup. -- Kendrick7talk 06:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

hello
That was not the article in question, and to be honest, I don't really agree with all your comments anyways, as incivility/bad faith hinders a dialogue or else policies are obsolete. So it becomes my concern, but that is not why I contacted you though. I would have preferred had you kept this to email and asked me what article, so I could respond, as I could have just posted my question on your talkpage, but I didn't. There was a reason. I won't ask again. You can reply here if you have comments, and I will look here. Fragma08 (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, time is short and I guess I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Still happy to try and help however.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. That is appreciated. Fragma08 (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Big Snowy Mtns
Hi Mike-

In response to your questions about my revision of the Big Snowies articles, my only source was personal experience, as I grew up in Lewistown, Mt before moving to the Bozeman-Big Sky area after high school. None of the content was copied from any websites or webpages. It was all written by me- I was trying to describe the features of the Snowies to the best of my personal knowledge. I got the exact elevation of Greathouse Peak off of a map, but other than that, the rest of the info strictly comes from my past adventures in the Snowies.

Thanks- Eric Drissell

Mike- unfortunatley, I'm afraid I'm unable to provide trackable sources other than my personal experiences living & recreating in central Montana, as there is very little detailed info on the Big Snowies out there on the internet- the range is hardly known about outside central Montana, & the little info I can find on them on the internet doesn't help back up my statements about the hiking trails & detailed geology, & some of the internet sources don't even provide correct elevations, so I appologize to you that I can't find any internet sources to back up my entry. Sorry for any inconvience my edit caused you.

--

btw- I tried adding a couple of links to the article to at least back up the elevation of Greathouse Peak- let me know if I did that correctly

—Preceding Eric Drissell comment added by 174.45.73.118 (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

disambiguation tip
Hi Mike Cline -- I noticed your most recent edit adding a Montana cemetery to Hillside Cemetery dab page. I think you may not be aware of disambiguation style guidelines, which require that a "redlink entry" (for an article topic where there is not yet an article) be supported by a supporting bluelink to a page showing the same redlink in contect.

So, an entry like does not conform, and will likely be deleted without notice by a disambiguation-focussed edtor.
 * Hillside Cemetery (Roosevelt County, Montana)

A proper entry would be: and would not get deleted. The specific guideline is at MOS:DABRL.
 * Hillside Cemetery (Roosevelt County, Montana), a cemetery in Roosevelt County, Montana

I work mostly on historic sites articles, myself, especially NRHP-listed places. I hope this is helpful to you. --doncram (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Followup: I noticed this edit in which you add links to county articles to the Hillside Cemetery dab page.  Those don't help;  the county articles do not mention the cemeteries.  What is needed to avoid routine deletion of these redlink entries is supporting bluelinks to articles that actually show the same redlink, in meaningful context.  The supporting bluelink example i used above is a link to List of cemeteries in Roosevelt County, Montana, which does actually show Hillside Cemetery (Roosevelt County, Montana).  Roosevelt County, Montana is an irrelevant article.  Again, just trying to help you avoid having your contributions routinely deleted without notice. --doncram (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Doncram - thanks I'll go back and correct all these errors when I get done with the cemetery lists. Thanks for the advice.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Murray Hotel
Courcelles 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar sort of


Hi Mike...I "award" this "honor" to those who do particularily fine work throughout the website as you have done...especially to USA related areas. There aren't many people doing work on this website from places like Montana, Nebraska, etc. and concentrating on those areas...(hence the "semi-active" tag someone placed on the WikiProject Montana page)...yours and to a lesser degree my efforts on Montana related articles has made the project active again. Most contributors are from the more urbanized regions of the world, so having folks like you around is vital. In case the term "cabal" seems odd, it was often used by critics to discuss those that edit along similar paths and have similar interests or POV's. When working on 9/11 related articles, I was perhaps the most agressive one around defending those articles from conspiracy theorists and others who held similar viewpoints had been labelled derisively as being members of my cabal...so it's all tongue in cheek...keep up the fine work!--MONGO 20:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

LarkinToad2010
Hi, when you said you second Andy, does that include his admonitions at my address? Just curious... --Crusio (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I got kind of upset with Andy's warning, as I have been trying to deal in a civil way with LarkinToad2010 for a long time now and only get abuse back. I didn't take well being thrown on one heap with LT2010 for reverting him after he reverted first DGG and then Steve Quinn's edits, which had been explained by DGG, just terming that vandalism. I should perhaps not have put "vandalism" in that edit summary, but this persons incivility and unwillingness to hear advice is wearing down my patience. So, no, I don't think Andy's admonition at my address was justified, but Andy clearly thinks otherwise. I think that LT2010's last note on his talk page shows that my evaluation of the situation is more on the mark, though. --Crusio (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Please consider summarizing and closing this RFC
Sorry, that's not something I'd want to do. Perhaps take it to AN/I? J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You get some cookies (Re: Thanks for the ARS checklist comment)
Thanks you so much. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's Johnny
My goodness! Such an eclectic assortment. As promised I'm back home and interested in doing the Montana Cattle Industry article. See my longer note over in my area. Per the note above, hope I don't get nominated for deletion. Don't think my soilent green would be very tasty. Per some prior posts, it appears that people can get quite contentious about what is allowed and what is to be done and who decides. Suppose I'll get used to it. Glad to contribute to (no longer moribund) Montana section. My sister Cathy is Deer Lodge teacher and may have some interest as well. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help over in my talk area. I will do what you suggest as a student. Hope to start article later tonight. John Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And let me thank you for prompting me to get involved here. It's really fun. Now if my wife can only understand... (guess I conflicted with somebody else. Seems to be the old deadlock connundrum from computer days) Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Game plan
Pretty sure I have stubs for virtually every major mountain peak in Glacier National Park covered...I think next up are the glaciers in Glacier National Park...then maybe the lakes...the historical structures are all pretty much covered in detail...maybe the hiking trails, but not sure on that one. Then perhaps I'll do the same thing with Yellowstone NP.--MONGO 03:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This...
...seems to be a walkover.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  05:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

William Henry Jackson
Hi Michael, I was providing needed citations for an existing article and making some of my own additions to the William Henry Jackson page when I saw your name in the edit history. I said, hmmm... that name sure looks familiar, and sure enough, it was because you are a member of the philately project also. Just wanted to say 'Howdy'! Along with stamp and postal history collecting I too am an outdoor's man and am an accomplished hiker, explorer and photographer. Just give me 5 lbs of trail mix and 3 lbs of beef-jerkey and I'm good to go for a whole week out in the 'frontier'. Haven't seen you at the phily'-project lately. Hope to see you around! ~ (John) GWillHickers (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the barnstar. It's an interesting conversation - he genuinely means well and finds great sources, it's just how to handle them that's a bit of a problem. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

consensus on lists
I put together a short summary of the principles from the list RFC where there appears to be consensus. I wanted to invite a small number of people to look at it before figuring out a next step (whether that's to invite more people, to work on another RFC, or to scrap what I've written altogether). Take a look at User:Shooterwalker/Lists. Note the point of the summary I wrote isn't to re-open the discussion, but to ask "does this describe the RFC"? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So you know, I've started the process of closing the list RFC at this section. Thanks for your participation! Shooterwalker (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Postal administration page
Hello again, I have begun a rewrite of the Postal administration page which as you know almost presents itself as a page whose title should be Universal Postal Union. I am proceeding slowly and ultimately would like to remove much of the info' about the UPU to the UPU page if it is not there already. I also added a section Early postal administrations and added some material there in the hopes that other editors may add info' about other early postal administrations. I welcome any consensus and of course more material on the subject. GWillHickers (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Infobox hot spring
Hi. I've noticed that you have done some work on pages that use Infobox hot spring. I've been working on a new version of the infobox and I have started a discussion on the template talk page. – droll  &#91;chat&#93;  18:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Postal administration meaning
Hi Mike, I left a reply to your last entry on the Postal administration discussion page. -- GWillHickers (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

List of modern weapons
Please take another look. I think it does give a specific exact definition.  DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD
Hi Mike, Thanks for keeping Catholic views on Mary. I'm already working on content that will hopefully make it a truly new article to Wikipedia. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of magical negro archetypes in fiction into Magical negro
Hi,

As you have recently edited one of the two articles mentioned, I am notifying you of the proposed merger. Please comment at Talk:Magical negro. Thank you, Bigger digger (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Lake Hotel
I think you and I are the only people who've made substantive edits, so if you want to change the name, we've achieved a consensus to do so. I dithered about the name when I first started the article, and I agree with your rationale.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation - your input is required
A request for mediation has been filed concerning a matter in which you have participated.

The operative page is at Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act). Please go there and indicate your acceptance of mediation at the Parties' agreement to mediation section (or you can decline to accept mediation, if for some reason you want to.) If you have any questions about mediation, see Requests for mediation or message me. Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sir can you help me?
Please can you open the Sandella's Flatbread Café title because it's block for creating article please move Sandellas Flatbread Café to Sandella's Flatbread Café hope you understand me.Halil marx07 (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sir for immediate action
A million thanks to you ,I will be specific for making articles.Halil marx07 (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

list redux
I spoke to Beetlebrox about closing the discussion on lists. I told him it's a lot of work and gave him an out. He said he'd be okay if we went to another admin, but if not he may still get around to it. It's not exactly something we can plan around.

The way I see it... We could:
 * Wait around.
 * Post another request on WP:AN and see who bites.
 * Or just close it.

The last one is less than ideal. Not because the summary isn't reflective... everyone had a chance to edit it and comment on it and it became very stable. But if we intend to start applying this RFC and clarifying existing guidelines such as WP:LIST and WP:N it might look more like the act of one or two editors... instead of the ~25 editors who commented. But I may just be cautious in wake of all the stonewalling from one editor. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Why don't you talk to Masem and ask him to close it? The whole thing has enough of my fingerprints and it would be good to pass the responsibility around to avoid WP:OWNership. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Well... we should probably try to take some of these principles off of the obscure RFC page and put it on another guideline such as WP:LIST and WP:N. I'd really appreciate your help in getting that started. It would suck if all the work we did to forge a compromise stopped short of actually writing it down somewhere meaningful. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Move requist
move Medina College Pagadian City to Medina College-Pagadian please for the second time help me as an admin, tnxHalil marx07 (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs
Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted in Bozeman, Montana
Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a Wikipedian in Montana. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Montana State University - Bozeman, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

I know Montana is a big state, but if you happen to live near Bozeman and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from Bozeman who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Appaloosa FA PR
Hey Mike, the gang at WPEQ is cranking up an FA run for Appaloosa, which is already a GA. We have it up for peer review here. Given that you have an understanding of Montana history and the west, I'd appreciate your eyeballs at PR, particularly on the history section, but also because we need the perspective of non-WPEQ people to point out if we have gone beyond terms of art and lapsed into incomprehensible technical horse jargon! LOL! Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Harry W. Child
I've written an article about Harry W. Child, should you have more material or something that can be backlinked. A picture of would be nice - he died in 1931 so there might be a pre-1923 image somewhere.  Acroterion  (talk)  22:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Just not so!
I can tell you what Mike, I wake up every morning and look out the window at the Pryor Mountains and they are no where near Carbon County. and they are much taller than listed. http://lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=1221

I am pretty new to Wikipedia and not all that great at editing but I know where the Pryors are and how tall they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Rider (talk • contribs) 22:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the map, there's a bit of Carbon County that extends to the east, south of Big Horn County and includes the bulk of the Pryors. If you're in Billings, Big Horn County is between you and the Pryors, but doesn't really include them. As Mike notes in his edit summary, heights of ranges are computed by an averaging technique, not (directly) by the altitude of their highest peaks.  Acroterion  (talk)  22:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * HI Linda, I've had similar whines (and spats with Mike), but the $&#@*!# USGS does count as a reliable source and sometimes those damn maps pull some nasty tricks on up (I got smacked upside the head over the Ekalaka hills, long pines and short pines, where I've actually been--but USGS still says otherwise). My suggestion is to rearrange the order of the county listed to reflect the actual relative association with a given range.  For example, I made a few edits to Sweet Grass Hills in that regard, just to provide perspective of someone who has actually laid eyes on them.   Montanabw (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Linda, your editing is fine and encouraged. I travel alot (125K miles on Delta this year) and I wake up in a lot of different places.  But where I wake up and what I see doesn't matter.  With WP its all about verifiability WP:V.  We rely on sources and appropriate sources for any given article are always a matter of context.  The USGS says the Pryors are in Carbon County.  The USGS says the elevation of the range is 6417ft.  A review of Delorme maps reveals the range spans Big Horn County, MT, Carbon County, MT and Big Horn County, WY.  The highest point appears to be East Pryor Mountain which is in Carbon County (~8776ft).  You should be commended for providing the source you did, many new in experienced editors don't even do that.  But its context was wrong the for article as it wasn't about the Pryor range, mentioning only in passing.  Keep contributing, especially on Montana subjects.  But remember, its what the sources say, not where we wake up. --Mike Cline (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Ahnentafel top
Hello. Thanks for closing the discussion, but the template is still the way it is. Can you change it to the collapsed with a no collapse option?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Instead of tagging - fix it
On 7 December 2010 you left the following discussion at User talk:Hike796, but it appears you were unaware that user did not (and still does not) know the titles, authors, or other information required to eliminate the Bare URLs (e.g., with Template:Cite web). Perhaps you feel that Template:Bare URLs should not be used for its purpose (including when an editor does not know the required information, nor know how long it would take to research the references and find the information), and if so, perhaps you feel the template should be deleted from Wikipedia? Please consider making either recommendation at Template talk:Cleanup-link rot. Either way, I'm confident you agree it is both inaccurate to characterize one who does not know a particular set of facts as not being a "productive contributor", as well as an insult to publish that characterization. After all, the contribution of placing Template:Bare URLs was indeed productive, in that it allowed you to notice the bare URLs and edit them with information you knew at some point, right? Moreover, I'm confident you agree that the problem was caused by the editor(s) who originated the bare URLs, but for some reason you didn't take just the small amount of time to identify and notify that/those editor(s). Thanks for your consideration while you've read this, and there is no need for an apology as others can see this response on your talk page (unless you delete it), and I'm confident you would prefer using your time to contribute improvement(s) to wikiarticle(s), instead. Hike796 (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * " Hike - you recently tagged Cactus Flat for Bare URLs, a fact that I discovered when reviewing the AfD on the article. It took me less than 5 minutes to edit and fix the article.  A productive contributor will take the time to fix little things like this instead of waiting for someone else to do it.  Your contributions to WP are appreciated. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)"

Pryor Mountains
Hey Mike thanks for your comments and input. I will try to learn some of that stuff. Linda Rider (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Getica
Thanks a lot! Great tips--Codrinb (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)