User talk:Mike Cline/Archive 5

Help
Self-explanatory: people who don't get the meaning of "history" when compared to "current events." Care to weigh in? History of Montana and Talk:History of Montana. Medicinal pot "historic?" Montanabw (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

ping
Sorry to have taken so long to respond to your email. I've been away and it went into my junk box. Tony  (talk)  13:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * List of cemeteries in Wyoming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Greenwood Cemetery, Mount Olivet Cemetery, Fairview Cemetery, Mount Hope Cemetery, Mountain View Cemetery, Riverview Cemetery, Riverside Cemetery, City Cemetery and Odd Fellows Cemetery

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Red herring
On your close at Las Vegas you wrote, "...current title does no harm to WP". That true, but I suggest that's a red herring. I mean, does any title do any "harm to WP"? If a title had to do harm before it could be changed, then it seems to me we'd never move anything. That's why I say this is something of a red herring comment, and not helpful. Since the statement is probably true at every move proposal, and therefore pointless, you might consider not using it again. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not challenging the close; I'm challenging the statement. I don't think you looked at the situation very carefully, and this is revealed by this statement regarding harmful titles, which indicates a sloppy evaluation.  I challenge you to show me a title (or actual proposed title) that does harm to WP (I agree some AfDs can harm WP).  There might be a harmful title in theory, but I've never actually seen one, and I bet you never have either, which is the point.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Your closure of RW at Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh
See Talk:Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh: you seem to have overlooked a key factor in the appeals to RS Kevin McE (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On the basis that consensus is not a vote (and therefore lack of consensus is not necessarily present where there is lack of unanimity), I would at a minimum ask that the balance of weight of arguments is considered, and if several people have simply echoed an undefended reason for maintaining the article at the present location, that this is simply considered on the basis of being one opinion.  Personally, I do not think that the inverted commas/scare quotes issue can be simply ignored: if important media sources will not use the phrase without such qualification, neither should we.  I would suggest that the discussion be re-opened and, if necessary, brought to wider attention: if not, I would suggest that the principle of concise and uncontroversial naming would dictate that the article in question, and others that have been brought up in the discussion, should be moved to Killing of ... or Murder of ....  I would point out that a current ITN candidate is Murder of Stephen Lawrence, not Racist murder of Stephen Lawrence, although coroner's inquiry and a recently concluded court case make it very clear that such a qualifier could be used.  Kevin McE (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Las Vegas Requested Move
I believe a consensus was reached on the latest move request for Las Vegas. Although not all users agree, the majority did support the move. Please reconsider and look at the arguments once more. Frischee113 (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Frischee113


 * I just saw this. As stated above, I thought the statement about harmful titles indicated a sloppy evaluation, but I did not realize that a majority supported the move.  Still, what matters is the quality of the arguments, and Mike did not address this at all in his closing statement.  The lack of harm by the current title, which he did note, is a completely irrelevant red herring, since, in practice, there is no such thing as harmful title, and so a title not being harmful should not be a characteristic of significance in evaluating an RM proposal. So, we're essentially left with an unexplained close which was supported by the majority.  Disappointing.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * it really is the end of the world. Stock up on canned goods.MONGO 14:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're around...
Want to help de-escalate this before it hits the drama boards and wastes all of our time? Franamax is on it, but FYI as you have the history. ANI, User_talk:Franamax, User_talk:Soglad_Tomeetyou and User_talk:Montanabw (and the rest of my talk page, for that matter? What is going on, is it Pick on Montanabw week or something?)  Montanabw (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Google search
Can you type "Kurdish - Turkish conflict" into Google search box and tell me how many results do you get? Kavas (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Move request for Quebec comics
Sorry, I didn't realize the move request was still open for Quebec comics. If you look, you'll see I actually did a few days ago exactly what you just told me I should, based on the discussion both on the move request page and the talk page there. User:Anthony Appleyard disagrees with this, however, and there is a discussion surrounding the issue regarding Canadian comics.

Just for the record, I normally do just edit the page as it is, bu in the cases of Canadian comics and Quebec comics, the articles were so thin and disorganized that merely "fixing" them seemed like a lot more work than just starting again from scratch. I couldn't find any guideline written anywhere that made it explicit that it was okay to just copy & paste the new article over the old. If it had said so clearly somewhere, then that's exactly what I would have done with Canadian comics, and is now what I've done with Quebec comics. There doesn't seem to be consensus that that is actually the policy, though, thus the discussion over Canadian comics.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 00:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest pear and purple Yogo sapphire photos
See Talk:Yogo_sapphire. Hope you think they're better, and just in time for the Great Wiki Blackout of jan 2012! Pumpkin Sky  talk  01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Re Kurdish-Turkish conflict move
Khutuck, it is unfortunate you did not weigh-in on this move during the nearly 6 weeks it was open. Merely saying the move should be reverted isn't going to work. If you sincerely believe the name should be changed, you are free to open an RM with the desired name. RMs are not binding, and any discussion aimed at reaching a better consensus is good. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Mike Cline. I'm sorry I was late for the discussion, I was working on Turkish wikipedia. I'm planning to make an RM soon, as the current name of the article does not reflect the conflict's nature.
 * The armed conflict covered in this article is between Turkish state (Turkish army, police and gendarmeire) and Kurdish group PKK and its affliates (KCK, PJK, PJAK); so it is completely wrong to name the article as "Kurdish-Turkish conflict", as Kermanshahi requested. Article does not mention any historical Kurdish uprisings (you can see them in Kurdish rebellions page), it only focuses on the "PKK vs Turkey" conflict. There were quite numerous Kurdish uprisings for the past two centuries, which can be seen at Kurdish rebellions page already. "Kurdish-Turkish conflict" should be a redirect to Kurdish rebellions page.
 * There is a Kurdish-Turkish conflict, I totally agree; but it is not limited to PKK-Turkey conflict. We should keep this article's scope to only reflect "PKK vs Turkey", and keep the overall Kurdish-Turkish conflict in rebellions article. Also, redirects such as "Kurdish uprising" should be directed to "Kurdish rebellions" article, and PKK-Turkey conflict should also be a subtopic of this new article.
 * I'll keep you informed for the RM. Thanks for your message, have a nice day :) --Khutuck (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN mention
You were mentioned in a discussion at WP:AN; AN --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Mass move
In my book, two comments does not make a lack of consensus, particularly when one of the comments was by an IP editor with no other edits anywhere. The fact that only one actual regular editor commented does not mean the discussion should have been closed. I would like if you relisted it or made it so it had a wider audience.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 00:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case you didn't write the book, I did. No one supported the moves in the discussion and two opposed it, with reasonably sound arguments. Two opposes, good arguments against and no one other than the nominator supporting the move equals No consensus in the discussion. You are always free to initiate another RM if you think there is support for your proposed move. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There was zero input aside from one person because an administrator like yourself should know to not count an argument from someone with zero prior edits. And Powergate92 referred to the last discussion, which was also him just arguing with me one on one. I want a wider audience on this shit because one proposal and one actual editor not agreeing with the proposal based on a discussion from a year ago does not make a consensus either way according to any sort of common sense.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 01:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate salmon flies
Thanks Mike. I didn't know that — the lists seemed to serve separate purposes. MistyMorn (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel it might be helpful to provide clearer pointers in the ledes to let readers know how the three lists have been arranged. When I came to the Bibliography of fly fishing page, I couldn't see anything to tell me that this wasn't the main list of 'historical' works. While adding in the old man's tome, I did actually stumble upon it in Bibliography of fly fishing (fly tying, stories, fiction). Being a notable 19th century work, I was slightly surprised to find it there, although I can certainly see why some of it could end up on the fiction shelf... My two flying cents, MistyMorn (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike - I'm giving the question some thought. MistyMorn (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A poor cast, I fear... You'll probably want to correct. Regards, MistyMorn (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike - I can see the problem you face and I don't want to be a bore... but I feel it's worth pointing out that the division sometimes seems somewhat arbitrary (eg The Salmon Fly could fit equally well into any of the three categories, imo). Maybe a note in the ledes would be helpful for newcomers to the article? My 2c again, and maybe better posted on the article talk page. Regards, MistyMorn (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My statement to Elen
My statement to about our dispute regarding WT:AT recognizability was so long I put it in a separate file, User:Born2cycle/DearElen. If you have a chance to look it over, and let me know if you find any inaccuracies or other problems with it, I would appreciate it. If you don't mind, please leave comments about it at User talk:Born2cycle/DearElen. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice concerning an action at ArbCom
A request has been filed for the Arbitration Committee to look at long-term issues with editing in the Article Titles and MOS areas at Arbitration/Requests/Case. I have added your name as a party, since it is clear that you have been involved at RMs, and at pages that are within the scope of the action. N oetica Tea? 05:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Bozeman Carnegie Library
Hi Mike. I started this article and will soon list it at DYK. I used one of your photos. Feel free to jump in improving, writing, taking more pics, whatever. Pumpkin Sky  talk  22:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * and this--File:West Yellowstone, MY.jpg can you delete the en wiki copy? I moved it to Commons.  Pumpkin Sky   talk  02:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lonesomehurst Cabin, another one you may want to help with. Pumpkin Sky   talk  14:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Added you to DYK credit for the library article. Pumpkin Sky   talk  15:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation case
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point about consistency in your closing on Talk:True strength index. I wanted to point out that the current version is the result of a renaming spree related to the ArbCom case above. Because this occurred without prior discussion, I guess I should have simply move-protected the original article title myself instead of engaging in debate. Ah, well. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

misspelling
Hi Mike-- Following the fascinating discussions at Article titles, I noticed this: San Alberto District, Paraguy, which is just a redirect, but needs to be moved to "Paraguay". I'm not taking sides in this current argument, but hang in there, because your posts make a lot of sense. (Personally, I'm a fan of predisambiguation, and I also have problems with WP:UCN - but I'm not running this show.) Milkunderwood (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * San Alberto District, Paraguy is an intentional template:R from misspelling. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Bozeman Carnegie Library
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Bande à part vs Band of Outsiders
In light of your previous participation in film titling issues, the discussion at Talk:Bande à part (film) may be of interest.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Nez Perce in Yellowstone Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clearwater river (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

War of the Triple Alliance
Letting users from Brazil determine the name of an article in the English Wikipedia is a surprising decision. That the number of views are greater for "Paraguayan War" can also be reasonably attributed to its ambiguity. I disaprove of your decision.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 23:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nez Perce in Yellowstone Park
Hello! Your submission of Nez Perce in Yellowstone Park 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! Daniel Case (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Party of Quebec
Hello. I see you have closed the move discussion at Talk:Conservative Party of Quebec (historical) as no consensus, and have not moved any of the pages. But doesn't this mean that things should be reverted to how they were before the moves? i.e. Conservative Party of Quebec (modern) → Conservative Party of Quebec (2009), or the somewhat consensus name Conservative Party of Quebec (2009—present)? Also, would I violate the decision if I move Conservative Party of Quebec leadership elections to Conservative Party of Quebec (historical) leadership elections? 117Avenue (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You free to make any moves you see fit that do not require admin intervention to deal with existing redirects. -Mike Cline (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. 117Avenue (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

RM for Paraguayan War
I'm a bit confused by the numbers you indicated in your closing rationale for the requested move at Talk:Paraguayan War. My own check shows that 'War of the Triple Alliance' received 9,000+ views in June, July, August and September, before the move; 'Paraguayan War', on the other hand, received around 5,000 views in October, November, December and and January.

Furthermore, regarding the supposed ambiguity of 'War of the Triple Alliance' and the unambiguity of 'Paraguayan War', I want to note that whereas examples of other Paraguayan wars were provided, not one example was offered of 'War of the Triple Alliance' being used in connection with any other 'triple alliance'.

Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * BlackFalcon, thanks for bringing my error on the page view stats to my attention. I too am now confused as to where I derived them from.  I am looking at my notes from yesterday and I cannot reconstruct what I did.  That said, I don’t believe the page view stats are a deciding factor here.  Both titles Paraguayan War and  War of the Triple Alliance are accurate and acceptable titles for this article.  When we encounter this situation, it is difficult to decide and there’s always valid rationale for either title.  In this case the only invalid rationale, and completely unsupported by any evidence that I can find is that Paraguayan War is some how Brazilian POV and should be dismissed on that basis.  I have discounted that completely.  My comment about Paraguayan War being unambiguous is literal as this is the accurate name of this specific war.  There is no other war by that name, even through Paraguay has been involved in other wars.  The same cannot be said for conflicts involving Triple Alliances.  I think the key element here is that War of the Triple Alliance lacks an explicit geo-political context that makes it ambiguous, whereas the geo-political context is inherent in Paraguayan War. On the commonname aspect of both titles, I believe it’s a toss-up, but just for the sake of it, here are the raw ghit numbers this morning from both titles searched for in quotes: Paraguayan War (Books- 16,700 Scholar-1250), War of the Triple Alliance (Books-6280 Scholar-810).   One of the searches I always like to perform on titling disputes on historic events is a JSTOR search to see which title is dominant at the beginning of the history.  In this case a pre-1950 search for Paraguayan War results in 118 returns, some with Paraguayan War in the journal article title  .  The results for War of the Triple Alliance returns 9 entries, none of which contain the phrase in the journal article title . Unconstrained by date, PW (565), WTA (295).
 * Again, sorry for the page view numbers confusion, I must be more careful. --Mike Cline (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying your closing rationale. I, too, didn't think of pageview stats as a significant factor as, after all, redirects ensure that the reader will find his or her way to the desired article; I was just caught off-guard by the prospect of 'Paraguayan War' being viewed 10–20 times more than 'War of the Triple Alliance'. As far as Ghits are concerned, I'm reluctant to rely on them too much as minor changes often can skew the results dramatically – for instance, my own search of Google Books showed about three times as many hits for WTA (173K) as PW (57K), but I realize that slight modifications would change these numbers.
 * Anyway, I better understand your reasoning now and, though I don't agree completely, recognize why you closed the discussion as you did. Thanks again, -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * May I also comment on your reasoning in the RM discussion. The common name in the English language is the War of the Triple Alliance, it is referred to almost exclusively in Brazil as the Paraguayan War.  When you see the name Paraguayan War in the literature, if you care to look closer almost always the reference work will be a History of Brazil.  You will also find false positives for example Paraguayan War also comes up with the  Bolivian-Paraguayan War of 1933.  So whilst claiming its less ambiguous, it actually causes confusion with other conflicts.  I also think your comments in the move discussion promoted a misconception that those opposing the move perpetuated.  There is no confusion referring to the War of the Triple Alliance with other Triple Alliances as in those cases the name of the conflict is completely different eg World War 1.  That it lacks a geopolitical reference is also a red herring I'm afraid - the common name of the conflict should be used.


 * And as regards Page view statistics, these make interesting reading, most hits to that page go via the redirect from the War of the Triple Alliance.


 * That said I wholeheartedly agree the POV accusations were unhelpful but may I also draw your attention to the very unpleasant comments from those seeking to maintain the status quo. In not commenting on that, I feel you made an error of judgement as they will now see it as a worthwhile tactic in the future.  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am intrigued by the notion that you think sources like this and  are not English Language sources because they are about the History of Brazil.  I find that a bizarre notion. If the source is published in English, is reliable, then it is an English Language source regardless of the subject.  WP:COMMONNAME is pretty clear-The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural. It all about the language of the source, not the subject or where it was published.  If Brazilian authors out published American authors 10-1 in english language publications and called this the Paraguayan War in all those publications even if they were printed in Rio, "Paraguayan War" would be the common name.  Its all about the language, not the source of the publication. To think or act otherwise would be extreme POV. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I think you're either constructing a strawman there or misunderstanding my point. My comment was (emphasis added) "if you care to look closer almost always the reference work will be a History of Brazil where they reflect the Brazilian name for the conflict (usually noting it is generally referred to as the War of the Triple Alliance). I did not claim they were Brazilian publications. Further I would ask you to note that I was the one in the RM discussion urging calm and that comments referring to it as POV were unhelpful.  War of the Triple Alliance is three times more common in English that is the point, by any application of WP:COMMON it would be the preferred term.
 * Futhermore, check the page stats, the redirect is getting the most hits due to the fact that people are searching for the Common Name and being referred to an article with the less common name.
 * I will close by noting that Paraguayan War is likely to be confused with several other conflicts, whilst War of the Triple Alliance will not. Again I will note, I feel you made a mistake by not commenting on all of the unhelpful comments that were made.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR and Google Books

I conducted a search for ("Paraguayan War") AND (cty:(journal) AND ty:(fla)) AND la:(eng), and obtained a result of 212 hits. I next searched for ("War of the Triple Alliance") AND (cty:(journal) AND ty:(fla)) AND la:(eng), and obtained 114 hits. Approximately a 2x lead for Paraguayan War. However, this is soundly reversed by the Google Books search which provides a 3x result in favor of "War of the Triple Alliance". I have also checked GB this morning, and for some reason the numbers had drastically changed. IMO, it seems to be a slight issue with the Google Servers. In any case, the evidence is there, regardless of my argument of Brazilian POV (which was not the only point made against the "Paraguayan War" title). Worthy of memory is that the article spent the last 8 years under the name "War of the Triple Alliance". If both titles are so "good", why was the new one given preference over the 8-year status quo? Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. I see you're being badgered by those oh-so-intent of teh WP:WRONGVERSION-title. I'm not going to rehash this here other than to state that I see the title Paraguayan War as the appropriate outcome. Alarbus (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Pabaiskas
It seems the move of title too rapid and unreasoned. I'd prefer to formulate "no consensus" and leave the original "Battle of Pabaiskas" name. Orionus (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not bad, 1 hour and 22 minutes before someone complained. I saw the move as warranted based on the discussion. That's what the WMF pays me the big bucks to do. RM decisions are not binding, and another RM can be opened at any time if you think you can reach a different consensus. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus in the Battle of Pabaiskas discussion page for your action. It seems that there will be no consensus on the reverse move. Wilkomierz is polonized name of Ukmerge. Then you should rename it at least to Battle of Ukmerge. Yet it should be mentioned that during that battle (1435) there was no Polish-Lithuanian union (1791) established. Thus Lithuanians treat this move as polonization of Lithuanian history and place names... Orionus (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As you wrote Battle of Wilkomierz,per Commonname you have a proof that this is common name, right? Please show it. M.K. (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Recall
Are you one of the admins open to recall? Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I know not all admins are open to recall, I was wondering if you are one who is. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated(?) note, just making sure you are aware that this discussion is still ongoing...as you "closed" it earlier, you may be interested to follow it (although I cannot imagine why you would). I am sure you know all this alread, I'm just covering all basis...Good evening, and be well. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Work your magic on this...
Hi Mike...I am sure you have it already on a to do list somewhere, but List of mountain ranges in Idaho needs your touch. Hope all is well on your end.--MONGO 18:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike...I am heading out soon so maybe just hold off since I won't be able to keep the bots at bay for about 5 hours.--MONGO 19:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really worried about the BOTs, at least they are civil. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh...well, will resume the issue in a few hours....I didn't know you already had it on standby in your userspace...even so, it was like magic.--MONGO 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Also...Missouri River is at FAC...Featured article candidates/Missouri River/archive4...Shannon1 has put out a huge effort to try and get this article featured and I think it's pretty close. I don't know how many FAC's you've participated in but the process is interesting to watch even if you have nothing to add as far as comments. I figured since you're near the headwaters and Three Forks, you may find this enjoyable.MONGO 16:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your chiming in there!--MONGO 03:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkpage move
Hi Mike, I just noticed you moved SFR Yugoslav Air Force to Yugoslav Air Force, could I ask you to also please move the associated talkpage Talk:SFR Yugoslav Air Force? -- Director  ( talk )  06:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ sorry I missed that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Mike Cline (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves
Your talk page had remained on my watchlist following our recent conversation and, over the past few days, I realized that your decisions seem to attract a lot of controversy. Having looked at some of the discussion topics and actual WP:RM discussions, I can't say I'm surprised. What I can and want to say is:

FC Zenit move closure
There were plenty of good guideline-based reasons (and evidence) for a move per WP:COMMONNAME here. I fail to see how a procedural close due to drama helps here when the majority of drama was caused by the single editor opposed to the move. Rather, you've basically just suggested that the best way to filibuster a discussion that isn't going one's way is to make as much noise as possible over it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, A concern about an edit without a RS source
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Campaignbox_Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict&diff=475976399&oldid=475885922 The editor admits there were more attacks on Hakkari in history, but he claims he uses numbers 1 and 2 for these attacks, since Wikipedia has only 2 articles on attacks on Hakkari. He writes "It's not about weather it was the first attack ever, it's about the fact that there are only two articles. If we make articles about other Hakkari battles/attacks/operations you can change the numbers."

But, I think the names should be kept as Hakkari 2007, and Hakkari 2011, as there is not any RS which says 2007 attack is the 1st Hakkari attack. What do you think as a 3rd person? Kavas (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hakkari is a place of low level fight. Even today there was an attack. See http://www.todayszaman.com/news-270903-one-soldier-13-terrorists-killed-in-clashes-with-pkk.html It is impossible to create articles for small attacks because of WP notability rule. So, there are clearly more than 2 attacks, I guess a number as high as 100 is not much. Kavas (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is as much an RS issue as an ambiguity issue within the template. Since both Hakkari articles are dated in their titles, it seems that is appropriate for the template with some condensation for brevity needed in crowded templates. Hakkari (2007) and Hakkari (2011) would seem appropriate. On the other hand 1st and 2nd Hakkari are not supported by any RS, thus their use in the template is potentially misleading.  I would favor dating the template links as noted above. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

re[2] FC Zenit close
To be fair I took offence at remarks that I'm disruptive and causing drama. Editing in such an environment is no fun and I cound not afford it anymore. Barocci (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You did? I thought I was the disruptive one causing drama. :P Mentoz86 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record see: Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bibliographies of U.S. states and territories
Category:Bibliographies of U.S. states and territories, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Penn State scandal
Mike, thank you for closing the discussion. I'll leave it up to you about whether you want to move my comments into the discussion or not. Primarily, because Penn State itself has set out on a campaign to change the name of the scandal, I fear this issue will be brought up over and over again. Even now the editor is seemingly threatening to take it to arbitration. For those reasons, I essentially just wanted to get those links saved so they could be easily retrieved for the inevitable next time. I am originally from the area, ground zero if you will, and it is amazing to me how many people seem to suspend logic and reality when it comes to this issue. Frankly, it really is cult-like behavior.123. Instead of constant spin, I just wish everyone would face the issues honestly and head on so we could get to the bottom of what really happened and prevent it from ever occurring again. Anyway, sorry for my rant and thank you for your work. MaroonGray213 (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Norse polytheism
Mike please see my comment on Talk:Traditional Norse religion in relation to the WP:AT policy. I think you should consider reposting the request move that you closed at WP:RM as there was no discussion about the usage in reliable sources. The whole conversation was of the flavour of "I don't like this" rather than considered opinions based on the Article Title policy and guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I will not open another RM because like other processes it is a time sink. Because of that there has been a tradition at RM, that RMs should not be re-opened within about six months unless there is a very good reason (such a descriptive name that was non NPVO). There is however plenty of president for a closer to reconsider their close it it is pointed out to them that their close was contrary to process.


 * If anyone had looked higher up the page they would have seen a previous discussion on page naming and moving where numbers at the time had been discussed (by me), so this should not have been a concept unknown to the people who took part in the discussion. But more to the point you will know about WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and as the closer of the RM you had a duty to guide the participants towards the policy WP:AT either by taking part in the debate yourself or by linking to it and suggesting another week to take that into account (see WP:RM "Most move requests are processed by a group of regular contributors who are familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions, non-binding precedents, and page moving procedures").


 * So the tradition of not initiating a RM in under 6 months and that I think that you should have followed the guidance given to those familiar with WP:RM, to inform those who were involved in the decision, who clearly did not consider WP:AT policy or its guidelines, that is why I have asked you to reconsider your close in this case and either reopen the RM or initiate a new one. -- PBS (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW if you disagree with me there is no need to reply in words, you lack of action will demonstrate it. As I am sure we have better things to do than to debate this to death. If on the other hand you have some more points you wish to make, then I'll be happy to read them but I will probably not reply to them. -- PBS (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think you made the right decision to reopen the RM, and I hope anyone else who reads this appreciates that it takes a brave person to revert a close because of the danger of being seen to of vacillate. But in your defence as Keynes said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?". -- PBS (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan (disambiguation) move request
I've reverted your closure. If you felt it was going on too long you shouldn't have relisted the move request. Now please give it until 7 days is up.

However the move is closed I highly doubt that it will have any great affect on any other articles to do with China. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Reversion of RM closure. Thank you. Kanguole 13:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition problems
AHHH... I think I know why there is a slight disconnect between Brews and the rest of us... we have a conflict of definition. As you have already noted, he appears to be Science oriented. In the Sciences, sources such as academic journal articles are usually considered primary sources (as being the first place of publication for their research)... but Wikipedia bases its definitions of the terms "primary" and "secondary" mostly on usage in the Humanities, where such sources are considered Secondary (because they interpret and analyze historical primary documents). In other words... he is using a different definitions of Primary and Secondary than we are. I have explained this to him... It may be that my explanation will resolve at least some of his concerns re Notability. Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree, that's another aspect of crossed wires. But he is coming around and behaving nicely in the process. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute
As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Request Move Discussion Closure
Hi! I think this probably should have been closed as no consensus, or left open a bit longer. Consensus about article names change quite frequently, especially ones that are based so tenuously on what is primarily used by reliable sources. I wasn't involved in the discussion, but would have liked seeing it fleshed out a bit more before being closed. jheiv talk  contribs 17:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jheiv, not clear whether or not you are asking me to do something, or just expressing an opinion on the close?--Mike Cline (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just expressing my opinion. I'm not sure the page is ripe for renaming just yet, so I don't think asking to reopen makes much sense, and I've never seen that happen, but I expect it will be renamed eventually and hope we will see a more thorough discussion next time.  Cheers.  jheiv  talk  contribs 20:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Undated move requests
Hi Mike. Looks like we have both been struggling with unsigned move requests that ended up in the "Time could not be ascertained" subsection and refused to leave. After some research (meaning trial and error) I have reached the conclusion that the remedy is to give it a new time stamp, i.e. the current time rather than when the request was made. Looking for instance at the history of the Web visitor tracking request, the time stamp replacement led to it finally being promoted. Favonian (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess that just done with  instead of ~ - Mike Cline (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the trick. Favonian (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Brews Ohare
Thanks for interveining there. I was not trying to threaten Brews, but after seeing yet another new section started trying to resolve this larger issue, I dont think he's aware of his actions being frustrating to deal with in the sense of forum shopping as well as his general logic that's hard to follow. I'm not going to respond there again since he seems to take anything like that as a threat against him, but I'm concerned when I read his rebuttal to your comment that he still doesn't get the forum shopping aspect, and how to better present his arguments instead of rehashing details. He seems to listen to you, so maybe if you can explain what the issue is with the forum shopping that he is (hopefully unintentionally) engaging in. --M ASEM (t) 04:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan_(disambiguation) RM
We have a Taiwan-related proposal that we plan to RM as soon as the Taiwan_(disambiguation) closes, so I was wondering that could happen sometime in the not-too-distant future. I count thirty days for this RM, and now it has been relisted for a second time. Kauffner (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary topic of "Black Caviar"
Hi, Mike Cline. your recent close of the move request at Black Caviar (horse) left things muddled. Is the primary topic of "Black Caviar" the horse (move the horse article to the base name, per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)? Or the food (leave the redirect Black Caviar pointing to Caviar)? Or neither (create a dab page at Black Caviar to disambiguate the two non-primary topics)? Your close seemed to indicate that there was no consensus to change the primary topic of "JBlack Caviar", but then the retargeting of the redirect indicated that there was (and that the primary topic should be moved to the base name). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When I closed this, I believe I was affirming that Black Caviar [the horse] was not a PRIMARYTOPIC and that Black Caviar (horse) was suitable disambiguation. When I changed the redirects and added the hatnotes to the horse article, it seemed logical.  But as you all have done making Black Caviar a DAB is equally logical.  I do think that some sort of hatnote on the horse article is appropriate.  I don't think there is a perfect solution to this one, because although no reader would ever confuse fish eggs with a horse; caviar, Caviar, CAVIAR, cAvIar, etc. (regardless of color) will most always bring to mind fish eggs.  Hope this helps --Mike Cline (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But making it the target of the redirect Black Caviar is making it the primary topic for "Black Caviar" -- that was the disconnect. If it's the primary topic, it should have been moved, and if it's not, it shouldn't have been the target of the redirect. Splitting by not moving the article but retargetting the redirect is less logical than any of the other options. The dab fixes that disconnect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Rack-O
Thanks for moving this for us! -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 21:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for some information
Mike:

As you are aware, Masem interrupted my exploration of notability and primary sources by making this exploration into a behavioral issue. However, I'd like to ask some questions of you about this subject without engaging in a public quarrel about nothing.

It would seem the distinction between primary and secondary sources in the world at large is not WP's definition. A major aspect defining secondary sources on WP is their capacity to establish notability, separate and apart from any consideration of establishing accuracy. Whether that is so or not is my first question.

My second question is how does one distinguishes a source that can provide notability from one that cannot?

For example, the article Calgary—Fish Creek is one I would have thought to be based entirely on primary sources. However, Blueboar has suggested that my notion of primary sources is incorrect. As I understand Blueboar, Calgary—Fish Creek would not be considered to be based upon primary sources. What do you think?

Is Calgary—Fish Creek notable? I'd guess it is, and that the fact that the article draws upon many sources establishes its value, really more or less independent of nature of its sources?

At the moment, I feel this subject needs a lot of clarification, and I hope you might comment. Brews ohare (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Brews, I've got some thoughts for you, but have to defer a bit because I am on the road working with a client in Orlando and won't really get an opportunity to put my thought together until late tomorrow or Thurs. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike: Thanks for considering my request. Look forward to hearing from you. Brews ohare (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Precious
This message is brought to you by --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Firm (2012 TV series)
Hi Mike, were you also planning on moving the talk page to match the article? --UnQuébécois (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for catching that. The talk page usually move along with the article move and I didn't recognize the talk move didn't happen. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin on here, but I remember from running a wikimedia project a while ago that when you do a manual move it doesn't do all that like the "Move" function! --UnQuébécois (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation closed
An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
 * 2) Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
 * 3) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.
 * 4) Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Montana Wiki Rookie Guidance
Dear Mike, Noticed you are a regular contributor to the Big Hole River page. This page has left me questioning the Wiki platform for more than a year now. Two concerns, one you noticed already. First, the page contains negative subjective content. Two, the page promotes the views and commercial interests of the primary developer - this is denoted by several links (some duplicated) to personal efforts including additional subjective negative (and largely extreme and outdated) content. I suggest a link to bhwc.org and removal of subjective material and duplicate links to start. Expansion of objective updated Big Hole River information would be a nice second. A wiki rookie with a conflict of interest, am unsure of wading into this. Ideas? Would appreciate your experience on this. --SunnyBlueDay (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll take a peek at this Mike, and see what may need to happen.  May be some tags, if nothing else.    Montanabw (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually don't think there's much wrong here, its just that there are several opposing factions on conditions in the Big Hole watershed. Everyone of the factions thinks they are right and the others are not. I don't think the article unfairly favors any one of them. I asked SunnyBlueDay on his talk to disclose his percieved COI to see where he's (she's) coming from. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of the language had a bit of a POV tone, in both directions.  I reworded a few things to remove potentially inflammatory adjectives and unneeded commentary, moved around material out of the lead and into the body, tossed a laundry list to the external links section, put some other stuff into narrative.  The article overall needs some work as its analysis of the situation is fairly superficial on both sides.  But I think getting rid of unnecessary adjectives and putting in a more encyclopedic tone should do the trick for now, I hope.   Montanabw (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you each act fast. I appreciate your prompt, helpful, and welcoming response. MikeCline, thank you for the reading material. Montanabw, thank you for your edits. Your edits meet most of my concerns. You're each right on. The Big Hole generates a wide range of valid opinions. I am not a fan of some of the opinions listed, but open to diversity when it is presented appropriately. I would question the validity of the links as a Wiki link, but not interested in engaging in Wiki policing. I think we can add value to the Wiki by expanding the content (as you point out, this page needs some work). My COI. . . Unfortunately, Jen Titus and several variations are popular Wiki handles, so I went with my auction handle. I am an employee of the Big Hole Watershed Committee. Part of my position is online resources - both developing ours and keeping up to date on related Big Hole River works as resources as there is typically a lot activity in our watershed in projects, initiatives, journalism, and research. A few questions. First, would it be legitimate to add reference to bhwc.org in the Big Hole Watershed Committee section and point the reader to additional information, as is done on the Big Hole River Foundation reference (this would be a reference for existing content, not organization promotion)? Second, can I add information such as geography, history, or biological information to this that is objective and not be considered a COI contributor (My analysis of Wiki guidance would suggest yes, if objective. I am not immediately interested in doing do, but interested in the possibility)? Expanding the available information would expand Big Hole River educational opportunity. Third, there is additional online content in research, reports, facts, history of conservation controversy, and on-going efforts and it seems appropriate to add links to this content under "External Links". Several possible references provide reviewed and published research that can provide value to the Wiki. Answers, on these would be helpful (or act on these - either one). Would be happy to provide Wiki content, but only if appropriate to do so. Thanks, SunnyBlueDay (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2
Hi. When you recently edited List of trails in Fremont County, Wyoming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian Trail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Page move
Could you please elaborate on the "appropriate adjustments" to be made for a recent page move discussion you closed? Thanks.  X.One   SOS  16:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Admonishment

 * Excuse me, but Dicklyon made a reasonable and appropriate proposal at WT:AT 4 days ago. No one else said anything about it since, then I made my statement an hour or two ago which totally and completely addressed the proposal.  Then you immediately made your admonishing statement, which said nothing about the proposal itself, and inferred negative things about both of us.  Please remove it for the sake of civility.   Thank you.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Lakes articles for Arkansas
Hey Mike, I noticed what you did with the Montana articles (i.e. List of lakes in Petroleum County, Montana) and decided to adopt the same system for List of lakes in Arkansas. I began yesterday on List of lakes in Arkansas County, Arkansas, and the article was quite time consuming to make. Do you have any tips or shortcuts to making these impeccable lists you would be willing to offer me? All I did was open the GNIS page and the edit window and retype all the information, so anything you tell me will result in an increase in efficiency. Great job by the way.  Brandonrush   Woo pig sooie  20:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent! That is exactly what I was looking for. I knew it was possible in Excel. Thank you, this kind of "infrastructure" is important to Wikipedia IMO, even if it is thankless work at times. I will complete the set in the next few days, and probably move on to mountains and cemeteries soon after. From what I understand from your userpage you are out West, but I hope you will accept my Southern thank you gift!
 * {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"


 * rowspan="2" valign="top" | 2003 AR Proof.png
 * rowspan="2" |
 * style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em; color: black" | A shiny Arkansas state quarter!
 * style="vertical-align: center; border-top: 1px solid gray; color: black" | For pioneering the easy creation of the Lakes in Arkansas by-county articles, and willingly helping out a fellow editor kindly and quickly, I flip y'all a shiny new Arkansas state quarter. 'Preciate it!  Brandonrush   Woo pig sooie  03:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * }
 * }

Dispute resolution survey
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:NPOVN regarding. The thread is "War of the Triple Alliance / Paraguayan War".The discussion is about the topic Paraguayan War. Thank you. --Cambalachero (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * List of cemeteries in Idaho (M-Z) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Mount Calvary Cemetery, Woodlawn Cemetery, Rose Hill Cemetery, Mountain View Cemetery, Riverview Cemetery, Riverside Cemetery, Pleasant Hill Cemetery, Mount Zion Cemetery and Woodland Cemetery


 * List of cemeteries in Idaho (A-L) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Greenwood Cemetery, Forest Lawn Cemetery, Evergreen Cemetery, Fairview Cemetery, Elmwood Cemetery, Lincoln Cemetery and Grandview Cemetery

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Fort Worth
''Note: this is not a challenge to your decision. However, if it compels you to change your mind, great!''

You wrote: "there has been no compelling WP:AT argument(s) to leave title at Fort Worth that outweighs the compelling argument of WP:USPLACE". I'm curious about this statement since the opposition argument was, essentially, that WP:USPLACE has no compelling argument. What "compelling argument of WP:USPLACE" do you see in the discussion? Also, the only WP:AT justification to follow WP:USPACE is "Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles" (consistency), but several people in the the discussion indicated that resulted in a wash, because "Fort Worth" is consistent with the pattern used by other city articles, like neighboring Dallas, and Whyalla. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A fresh RM can be opened at any time
I think it would be helpful if you were to read User talk:Noetica I guess that we will need to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. -- PBS (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Rationale requested
Hi Mike, could you please provide rationale for your RM close at Talk:Scouting and Guiding in Mainland China? 'Not moved' doesn't help us identify what policy or guideline hindered the request or give insight into whether similar moves would also be affected by those policies and guidelines in future. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  23:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. I replied to you on my talk page. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  23:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

BLPs
Hi, just to let you know I don't have any problem with the close at Stephane Huet, but I wonder if you know if there is a tool which will count how many articles are BLPs? It's easy enough to see that 50-60 BLP articles are out of line will real spelling (assuming that tennis and ice-hockey are the only cats, surveying other sports seems to indicate this) but what is the total BLP pool? 10,000? 400,000 (=10% of 4m articles)? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yogo drive
We've restarted working on Yogo sapphire. Your great assistance would be greatly appreciated. Pumpkin Sky  talk  11:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Scouting_and_Guiding_in_Mainland_China RM
Would you reconsider the closure of this RM due to sockpuppetry? The IP addresses and Jeffrey/Jeremy should be ignored. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Sorry for not providing you any background here. Chinese topic discussions around RfCs, renames, and deletion are absolute magnets for sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and general canvassing particularly from Hong Kong IPs. Closers are usually warned to look for and discount collusion. Whether my side of the discussion "wins" or not I don't usually ask for second guesses but this particular one is ugly.
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeffrey_Fitzpatrick covers the !votes of one IP and Jeffrey. Jeffrey appears to have no compunction against socking, and another IP !vote (which was marked as SPA) should have been discarded (or afforded little weight) as well. Previous discussions on SPI have some agreement (though no conclusion) that Jeffrey is a clone of Instantnood, who has been socking for years. Jeffrey, and the other named opposer on that discussion, Jeremy, have been shown to be collusive in the past - if they are unique users. Meatpuppetry shouldn't stand either. Once you discard three or four people from the discussion only two legitimate accounts provided a rationale to oppose. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Carnegie spelled wrong
In File:BozemanCarneigieLibrary2011.jpg Carnegie is spelled wrong. I can't believe no one, including me, never caught that. It's pending rename by a Commons admin. Pumpkin Sky  talk  21:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It didn't take long for someone to run that rename!

Article right up your alley!

 * User:PumpkinSky/Bozeman National Fish Hatchery is a draft I've started on. It's related to your favorite hobby and in your neighborhood. Feel free to tweak or swing by and take photos. I've made a commons cat and put 5 photos from their website in it. Feel free to edit, improve, and/or take better/more photos. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In main space now is Eagle's Store of West Yellowstone if you are interested. Pumpkin Sky   talk  10:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the fish draft, see what are now refs 2 and 3. I thought it was both Tech and Health Center now but I'm not so sure. Note the street addresses are different. How close are they? Are they connected in some way? Pumpkin Sky  talk  00:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Link me the addresses. If both on Fish Hatchery Road, then very close.   Montanabw (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One's NE of town and one is on the west side of town. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bozeman National Fish Hatchery in main space now. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Zhivago
Yes, there were five opposes and two (or three) supports. However, one opposer said that the "film" should be the primary due to popularity, not the "novel". Three opposers said the novel must be primary. All supporters said that neither novel nor film is primary. Why is it closed rather than relisted or something? --George Ho (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not improving the consensus then? I would like to hear your comments about my initial proposal on Doctor Zhivago. --George Ho (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, you can still either pick "support", "oppose", "neutral", or anything, as long as you are not the closer. What do you say? --George Ho (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 5d6eca5cd828910602f718050456259a
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Lehrkind Mansion
See User_talk:Nyttend. If this pans out, could you snap a free photo for us? Pumpkin Sky  talk  11:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He answered on my talk page. Could you get a photo of the mansion? I'd really appreciate it. Pumpkin Sky   talk  12:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC) ... Also, what is the Spieth and Krug used for now? Last I can find is the Bistro but they moved.  Pumpkin Sky   talk  12:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fred F. Willson See edits to this. According to the ref, he designed the coca-cola plant, not the brewery listed at the bottom under other. He'd have only been 21 or so when the brewery was built. Pumpkin Sky  talk  15:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
BO ; talk 23:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Stamps Images
Hi Mike - I have a number of photos of stamps my mom designed for the Kenyan and Israeli post offices. I'd like to know if it is ok to upload these to include in a gallery on her article. Perhaps you know about this. BO ; talk 23:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

BO ; talk 11:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Saidpur, Rajshahi Division
I understand I added the incorrect move notice to Saidpur, Rajshahi Division, but the name of the article is completely incorrect as it lists the city in the wrong division/state. I don't have an account, so could you please move the article to Saidpur, Rangpur Division, where it belongs, instead of just removing the notice. Thanks. 118.209.233.248 (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if you do not have an account (you should btw), you must provide some policy based or source based rationale for the move. You should add that just below the move request.  You shouldn't expect other editors to guess about why the move needs to be made. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Post Office
Hi, Mike. "United States Post Office" is a proper noun, and the move discussion had it formatted as such, but you moved the page to List of United States post offices. Can you repair that, please? Powers T 19:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yogo PR draft
See User:Wehwalt/Sandbox6. Also, the Brewery District article is at DYK nom page now. If you can get a pic of the Lehrkind Mansion that'd be awesome and much appreciated. Pumpkin Sky  talk  22:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland
I wasn't aware that the Talk page was off-limits, and actually think we were starting to discuss the matter on a more civil basis. Why revert the title to the pre-RFC form, but not the article itself to how it was before the dispute started? I appreciate you raising it at the Olympic project, but would suggest that the Swimming one would be appropriate, as well, as the scope of the page has always been wider than simply the Olympics. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the RFC has now timed out, please could you advise on how to proceed further? No response from the Olympics project.--Mirokado (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for closing it. I think there is a typo in the statement:"... does preclude categorizing..." should be "... does not preclude categorizing..." Probably best if you tweak that even though what you meant is clear... --Mirokado (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed, thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Page moves
Hello Mike I notice you sent this to User:Noclador. As part of the same process, it seems, the page German Army (1935–1945) was also moved. As that page was only moved to that title a few months ago, via RM, this move seemed inappropriate. I was able to move it back and I've opened a discussion on the talk page there; would you be willing to move-protect it? do you think it is worth it? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for that! Xyl 54 (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Toyko Stock Exchange
The spelling is wrong, it should be Template:Tokyo Stock Exchange. --Svgalbertian (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you also fix the double redirect at Template:Tyo? The page is still protected. --Svgalbertian (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Suddenly dead urls
Hi Mike...I have some suddenly dead urls at GRTE article...one has come back online in the past 30 minutes under a slightly different url here...the others from the same source are still dead...maybe they are making moves on the webpages...I know the NPS has just done a complete makeover of their pages, so this may be part of that effort...--MONGO 16:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Mike...thanks for helping out. I inadvertantly stepped on some of your edits yesterday...sorry.MONGO 17:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yogo sapphire at FAC
Featured article candidates/Yogo sapphire/archive1. Improvements welcome. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)