User talk:Mike Cline/Archive 6

Utica

 * New article on Utica, Montana you may want to look at. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Your closure of the Perth request was not appropriate
An arbitration case is currently reviewing this matter. The move review you have closed was not a standard review, and has the character of a request to review administrator actions - the discussion took place at move review due to the unusual closure at ANI. Also, this discussion was opened on the question of "was there or was there not a consensus" in the existing discussion - not whether the admin merely intended to comply with the spirit of the closing instructions. Your close is visibly unsupported by a Community consensus. By arbitrarily imposing your personal view as to the focus on, and whether RMCI was intended to be complied with by JHunterJ (as opposed to what the Community view was with respect to whether there was a consensus in the discussion), you have engaged in the same conduct currently subject to review at the arbitration. In the circumstances where your action is causing disruption, I strongly urge you revert your closure to avoid the necessity to name you as a party to the case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any way in which Mike Cline's closure has anything to do with the conduct being reviewed at arbcom. I'm not sure I'm fully on-board with MC's philosophy about move review, but these accusations are way off. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 15:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI, I made this comment on Ncmvocalist's talk page: I am not sure how you find my closure of the move review disruptive (to what?). It was made in isolation of the Arbcom which I understand has little to do with the original close, but more about behaviors after that. I closed a Move Review (so far I am the only admin ever to do so) in a way I believed was consistent with the new Move Review process.  As to my rationale, I believe that WP:RMCI does indeed weigh concensus versus policy interpretation very clearly, and that closing an RM in the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI does indeed demonstrate consideration of consensus.  I believe the participants in the move review by and large supported that position.  I have no problem with you bringing me into this contentious situation if that's what you desire. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC) --Mike Cline (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Had I a desire to bring you into this arbitration, I (or someone else) would list the motion immediately rather than give you this opportunity. As you have not understood correctly, the arbitration is reviewing all administrator involvement in this matter. The move review criteria has no standing whatsoever; the Community have not even come to a consensus to adopt as a trial (like it did with pending changes). By providing weight to the criteria listed in an unapproved process (as opposed to closing the discussion in accordance with the current way in which reviews of administrator actions are closed), you have disrupted the actual and intended purpose of this particular discussion; you have also appeared to act as an arbiter and policy maker when you have not been given that authority. This may not have been your intention, but it is certainly seems to be the overall effect. It is very clear that a significant majority of involved and uninvolved users endorsed Deacon's closure, and found that consensus did not develop at the time JHunterJ declared it. An arbitrator also noted that the Community endorsed Deacon's close. When your closure did not assess consensus in terms of policy which has been accepted by the Community (and Committee), there are only two possible paths this will lead to. It is especially important for administrators to take care and show sound judgment in these situations. I once again urge you to revert the closure, or to alternatively advise if you do not intend on doing so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not intend to revert my close. If the statement you made above The move review criteria has no standing whatsoever is true, then my close has no standing whatsoever as well and editors may choose to do whatever they please with the Perth article. I closed a move review in good faith to help forward a new process under development that many editors have asked for.  If in your view that process underdevelopment has no standing in the community, then neither do my actions with that process and they should be ignored.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That response mitigates the bulk of my concern, but just to clarify:
 * (1) Will you or will you not be enforcing your closure of the move review by moving the pages?
 * (2) If all of the comments at the move review were actually made at an admin noticeboard, and you were assessing consensus by reference to existing policy (rather than the focus on whether the closer intended to follow WP:RMCI as outlined in the proposed move review process), would your close of the discussion be any different? If so, how? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Re #1, no I am not going to enforce my decision by continuing the wheel warring that has gone on with this article. That would be disruptive.  Re#2, dangerous question to answer so I won't because there's just too much contentious context to deal with. But to clarify, WP:RMCI is existing WP process (since 2005) as part of the RM process. The Move Review process merely invokes that existing guideline.  I think there is an implicit assumption that we expect RM closers to follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI whether or not there is a Move Review process inplace. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on this response, and your response at 16:12, 22 June 2012, I do not expect you will need to be a party to this arbitration case. To some extent at least, I still feel that in spite of your good intentions and explanation, the close/observations/rationale should have said some of the points covered in this exchange for it to be appropriate, given the unique and current context. That said, you have covered the points effectively here, and mitigated the concerns I held in relation to the effect the close would have overall. I apologise if this seemed too abrupt, but hope some part of this experience was beneficial/fulfilling. I thank you for your prompt responses in any event. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Mike, I don't understand why you closed the review without moving the article. Move_review seems to indicate that the page should be moved if required according to the closure. I can understand your reluctance to move the article given what is going on and the recent mood of arbcom in general, but if you don't want to move it I don't think you should close it. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The approval of the process is irrelevant. If the discussion had taken place at Talk:Perth, Western Australia in the form of another RM, an RfC, or at some other venue, it would be fine. It doesn't matter where it happens, as long as it is appropriately publicized, which I think this one was. If Mike Cline moves the article to Perth, that is not wheel warring at all since there was plenty of discussion. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Rather than just say it was closed according to WP:RMCI can you explain how you came to that conclusion. Gnangarra 01:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Answered at Move Review talk --Mike Cline (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
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.


 * Gibbon River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Teton County


 * Golden Gate Canyon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Park County

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Closure of RM at Disney California Adventure Park
Hi Mike, I saw you closed the move request at Disney California Adventure Park without moving it. While it's true that there was really no support for the move as originally proposed, looking back on the comments, it looks like everyone supported a move to Disney California Adventure. Would you review the discussion to see if that move is merited, or should I request that move anew? Best, BDD (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I came here to make the same comment. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I certainly may have missed something and will revisit this evening once I get back to my hotel from work. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --BDD (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work on this ... by the by, when you revised your closure remarks, you said you moved it to "California Adventure" instead of to "Disney California Adventure", as you did and as was the consensus in the discussion. Minor detail, I know. I'm tempted to fix it myself but was afraid I'd be stepping on toes. -- McDoob  AU  93  21:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. BTW, I have tiny, insensitive toes that never get stepped on.  I am really pretty easy going about these things. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's still messed up. Local consensus developed there seems to have assumed that "California Adventure" (what was originally proposed) is not commonly used in reliable source.  That does not appear to be an accurate assumption, and so I would dismiss all arguments based on it, and support the original proposal.  I started a section on this issue there.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Grand Teton National Park
Hi Mike...thank you for your assistance on the article...it is now featured!--MONGO 01:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Syrian uprising (2011–present)
12 October (protection ends) is not equal to 60-days (RM close comment). I'm involved (having closed the last RM) so don't feel it appropriate to comment on which one it should be but thought you'd like to know as, given the heat around this, I wouldn't be surprised if someone used that difference to attack you. Dpmuk (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is making headline news today: "Red Cross: Syrian conflict now a civil war". I think the 60 day thing could become an issue. The name actually is quite significant as it implies a political position in which side you support. For example although traditionally historians called it the Taiping Rebellion, current thought it was a Civil War and many historians are now calling it that. It is significant because at the time, western powers wanted it to be perceived as a "rebellion" because they supported the government and not the "rebels", but that is now seen as propaganda at the time, and the reality is it was a civil war. In the case of Syria, the current government would love the world to think there are rebels and it is an uprising, and not, as the Red Cross says, a true Civil War. Anyway if nothing else "uprising" implies rebellion and is POV, whereas "conflict" is a neutral descriptor. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand your last decision to close the article as not moved, but I do not think a 60-day protect move is appropriate, even before the Red Cross thing. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Montgomery?
Mike, drop me a line next time you're in Montgomery: we'll go have drinks and call it "work". I know just the place. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Yerba mate
A move discussion has started again on the article: Talk:Yerba mate. I am notifying you since you expressed an opinion in the topic in the past. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mate (beverage)
A move discussion has started again on the article: Talk:Mate (beverage). I am notifying you since you expressed an opinion in the topic in the past. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

*grin*
You mean "Another Admin comment - for those clamoring for a premature close, the above Administrator and the editor are correct..."?? LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Bollinger Bands® article rename and move request
Mr. Cline,

I see that Dicklyon has again initiated a rename and move request for the Bollinger Bands article. This time he has preemptively edited the article before the discussion commenced. I thought that we had settled this once and for all at the cost of many person-hours of time and effort. I won't go into the reasons not to move it here, they've already been enumerated, but I am prepared to enumerate them on the discussion page again if I must. The proper usage is perfectly clear, yet he insists on trying to create his own usage. I object to this campaign by attrition; these efforts to devalue my intellectual property are tremendously damaging emotionally and physically.

I am writing you as you are the Wikipedia administrator who decided in favor of the proper usage of Bollinger Bands on Wikipedia last time and in hope that I will not have to endure yet another iteration of this process.

Best,

John Bollinger, CFA, CMT (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Emails
Hi Mike, are you getting my emails? I got an email filter notice from your email provider and I haven't seen you respond to any of my emails since that time. Can you check if your filter is blocking my emails? Pine✉ 20:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I just got another message from your server saying that my message is being held. Can you address this please? Thank you, Pine✉ 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally screwed up
Mike, I need your help. A while back, an editor requested we move The Next Food Network Star to Food Network Star, as the show had changed the title. Consensus at the time was not to move, and you closed the discussion. Well, a new editor came in with a source for the name change, which was never in dispute, and moved the main article above, plus the season 4, 5 and 6 articles, all over consensus (and over redirect). I decided to fix it when I was to sleepy to do anything of the sort and totally, massively and utterly screwed it up. Instead of moving it all back, I moved it all to The Food Network Star or The Food Network Star (season #). That's four articles and their talk pages I messed up and I can't seem to fix it. Since you closed the original discussion, I thought it best to come to you. Can you take them back to The Next Food Nework Star, etc. or tell me what to do to fix it? I really apologize for all the hassle! --Drmargi (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Necromancy
Saw your close on Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(2nd_nomination) I believe a similar issue is occuring at Articles_for_deletion/List_of_defensive_gun_use_incidents Would appreciate your attention/opinion? (Please ignore if you consider this canvassing). Gaijin42 (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Jane Harrison
Any chance you could do that as a relist for more opinions, instead of a "not moved"? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Considering the only other person to opine there has reverted to that title 3 times so far, I was hoping to get other opinions on the subject before closing. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Close please
Mike, I'd like to request a close on Talk:Pho, it is in the RM backlog and I no longer support my own proposal. Unlike the other Category:Vietnamese cuisine RMs it wasn't undiscussed moved/redirect locked, and more importantly unlike the others it has actually passed into English per "chicken pho (phở gà)" etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet another RM close please
The discussion at Talk:2007–2012 global financial crisis started as an RfC but then became an RM on Aug 1. &rarr;Yaniv256talkcontribs 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

men's rights
I originally posted this on the article titles talk page, but decided it would be better to not drag that conversation in to further tangents.

There's no need for a histmerge. In fact, since Men's rights and Men's rights movement have substantially overlapped in their histories, the results of a histmerge would be pointlessly confusing. This type of situation is explicitly warned against in the histmerge instructions. The page history at Men's rights movement doesn't need to be preserved in the main article space (or really at all,) since all it represents is some previous drama. (No content from the history of Men's rights movement is used anywhere else on Wikipedia, and it was mostly all copied from Men's rights to begin with.) An appropriate solution would be moving what is currently at Men's rights movement to Talk:Men's rights movement/oldhistory, and then moving what is currently at Men's rights to Men's rights movement. None of these actions require advanced permissions - I am not an admin on ENWP, and could carry that set of moves out myself perfectly fine. I guess moving the archived pages could be a bit of a pain in the ass without a sysop bit (unless they move automatically for non-sysops, which they might, I'm not sure,) but that'd probably only take five minutes or so to do. Tangentially, there were at least three admins participating in the RfC anyway, so there are plenty of people with sysop bits on that page.

I would suggest that KC has acted appropriately in not carrying out a move, at least so far. (Actually, more than that, I would suggest that acting differently would've been inappropriate.) Men's rights has yet to be updated to be an appropriate article for the title Men's rights movement - a process that will require at least going through the article and changing a few words as well as writing a new lede (or updating the lede.)  None of that will take a terribly long time, but is something best left to a content contributor. Once the necessary minimal updating is done, the updater could handle the page move themselves, or could ask KC for help. It would be a bit confusing if the article was moved as-is with no changes at all, and given how controversial the article has been, I would prefer if someone involved in making recent admin decisions about the article didn't try to start making content decisions, even if they are minor ones. (The reason I haven't done it myself yet is just that I'm currently in a real-world time crunch. If no one beats me to it, once I am out of this time crunch, I'll do it myself.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Awkward: I forgot that on ENWP you need to be a sysop to suppress a redirect. I'll poke one of the sysops involved in it to fix it.  So you were right, a sysop hand was needed (though I think in any case KC was acting appropriately by waiting, since she would've also had to have made content decisions to implement it.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC advice
I think it would help to bring RM into the discussion at WT:AT and am considering an RfC at WT:RM about RMCI and MRV. I may not be the right person to do this and I may not have the right question and I'd like your advice. Here is what I would post there:
 * If a page is moved without being listed at WP:RM can we still use WP:RMCI or WP:MRV? If so, how? If not, do we want to make changes so we can use them? ~
 * If a page is moved without being listed at WP:RM can we still use WP:RMCI or WP:MRV? If so, how? If not, do we want to make changes so we can use them? ~


 * This question arises from discussions at WT:AT looking at changing policy statements to clarify that RM is not the only way to seek broad consensus for potentially controversial page moves, as clarified by a recent ANI discussion. If RMCI and MRV are not applicable to page moves conducted outside RM then do we need separate closing and review procedures for these extra-RM moves or can we open RMCI and MRV to include them? ~

Please let me know if you think this is off track, inadvisable, or if it would be better for someone else to handle this. As someone unfamiliar with both RMCI and RMV I'm not certain I should be involved. Joja lozzo  17:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom request: Men's rights, WP:TITLE, User:KillerChihuahua
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

N oetica Tea? 03:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Mike, that's the proforma notification. I see that you have been heavily involved in this issue (the RFC at WT:TITLE, for example); and you are clearly a well-qualified "expert witness" for the case. I hope you don't mind being roped in like that. You can always ask to be excused if you want to; but I think your contribution would be invaluable.

Best wishes,

N oetica Tea? 04:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Slapping your talkpage with a tag
--MONGO 05:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Nashville
I'm not going to challenge your decision here (I concede there was consensus to move it) but I found your reasoning flawed. USPLACE only recommends that cities follow the city, state convention. To me, that seems to suggest there's wiggle room. But it seems from your close that no wiggle room exists. Cheers  Hot Stop  03:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation/Asking your contribution
Dear Editor, heated discussion on the renaming of this article. Maybe the article is not very interesting in itself but there is quite an example of a debate on the principle of naming conventions on its talk page. Everybody most welcome. (RfC distributed by this scribe on a random basis.) All the best. --E4024 (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mike. There is an IP address disrupting (maybe even vandalizing) the above discussion with shit-shat. Take a look here please. Thanks in advance for your intervention with the said user. --E4024 (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to your note: As I have no clue how to make an RM I asked user: Khutuck to attend this issue. Thanks... --E4024 (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone else did it... --E4024 (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

--

Mr Cline, I saw the policy discussion you opened about Article Titles. (I think that it has somehow turned to be "another" discussion about the Bozcaada move. As the close was wrong, IMO of course, I am afraid this move discussion will continue to dominate several pages, including policy discussions like this one is supposed to be.) Anyway, I would like to ask your opinion (as I could not see it there) on this "difficult pronunciation" claim. The flaw in policy also includes pronunciation issues now? Does "Chișinău" look easy to pronounce? I had asked about this before but as I see there are users ignoring my question and making their own, I take that attitude as not a sincere quest of the "correct" name but as a defence of the "preferred" choice. Anyhow, I would like to know your evaluation of this "pronunciation" issue if that is notable at all... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Links to old move discussion?
Hello! I am puzzled by your recent addition of this line to many neighborhood pages in San Diego - for example, Talk:Loma Portal, San Diego and Talk:Logan Heights, San Diego. As far as I can tell, the move discussion in reference was closed in December 2010. Is there something else going on that we need to know about? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You said you were doing routine cleanup, "commenting out" the misplaced move notices - but the result was not cleanup, it was the addition of a new section to the talk page containing a puzzling line of jargon. See, for example, Talk:Loma Portal, San Diego. Thanks for checking on this. --MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see! With your permission I will just go ahead and delete that section so it doesn't confuse anyone. There is another section on the page that also links to the discussion, so the history won't be lost. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Angelokastro
Could you please have a look at this discussion. User censors my discussion and writes in my talk page (removed already) that I cannot tag(bomb) an article whose "authorship" s/he claims. (I used tags for the first time and did not know could not put so many; but I am sure I can put some of them.) I am also sure all of us own WP, not? (Now while I was trying to write these sentences here, this user filled my talk page with warning tags -or whatever they are called- and rushed to edit the article... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Hiram M. Chittenden
Hurray, Hiram M. is getting the attention he deserves :) Rjensen (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Stalker! - I just got a beautiful copy of the 1961 compliation of his private papers and diaries published by the Washington State Historican society, so I thought I'd do a bit of work on article. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Prince Harry RM
WP:NCROY is supposedly based on the outcome of RMs. So if the guideline is used to override the vote in a very large RM, we have a catch-22 situation. How can we can get rid of this royalty-coddling guideline so that common name may reign supreme? I've got another anti-NCROY nomination ready to go, but perhaps this strategy needs to be reconsidered. Kauffner (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Hello Mike Cline. User:Kermanshahi keeps personal attacks based on my nationality on Talk:Kurdish–Turkish conflict. Can you warn him to stop ad hominem comments? Thank you. --Khutuck (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ambassador Program
Hello Mike,

Thanks for your comment on RJensen's talkpage. I am reading/reviewing the MOU at the Wikipedia:United States Education Program/MOU. I will return after with a better understanding.

Draconrex (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have read and understand the MOU, and signed it under Colorado, Western State Colorado University, Campus Ambassador. If this application to join the Ambassador Program is approved, I will procede to the next step of contacting the WSCU Public Relations to coordinate communications with Faculty and Library Services. Please don't take my boldness here as blind ambition, although i am a new editor on the block, I have been with Wikipedia for a long time as a (no account) 'user'. Now it is time for me to give back.

Draconrex (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Re treasure mountain
Thanks for the support offered on the two topics. Biblios are kinda new to me, so I'm going to be sure and check out the WP:Bibliographies.

As the Treasure Mountain thing is derived from USFS Map, 2008, the name "Treasure Mountain" is written upon a boundary line of Raggeds Wilderness and there is no peak shown nor elevation. This boundary line separates watersheds so I took it to mean that it was a range, perhaps it is more of a ridge, beings "range" is not written there. It could also be a cartographic typo as well. Perhaps I shall visit the Gunnison Field Office and inquire. Treasury Mountain is situated at this boundary with its peak and elevation, so maybe the article should be Treasury Mountain. Either way, I shall verify with the rangers at the field office. Draconrex (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the source advice (NOR) and ways to find content for articles. It is a tricky thing and is going to take some practice to control. I like the way you have explained it. I have expanded the Treaure Mountain using your advice hopefully properly. I will review my work later as it was quite confusing working on it today, keeping things in the proper perspective. You have brought to light things I never thought of. Continuing to learn, Draconrex (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Movenotice
Good! But please modify you proposal as I deleted mention of it from the RM text a couple of days ago. I also removed mention of it from the other guidelines it was mentioned in about a week ago, so currently no guideline suggests its usage. -- PBS (talk)

Re Treasure Mountain DYK
Received the notice, great, I'm all for it. But, I am a bit confused, (Treasury Mountain? sp?) when I went to the link review or comment; ok, Move template to Treasure Mountain, correct spelling. Perhaps you need more time to correct things, or you wish for me to see these kinds of problems and I need to know how to correct them. A little guidance here would be a great aide. meanwhile, I've started another article for creation - Tomichi Dome at User:Draconrex/Tomichi Dome. (rather proposed as yet). Draconrex (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Howdy
Mike, are you still in the neighborhood? The Big Lebowski is playing in the Capri tomorrow...good beer at Leroy... Drmies (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I saw your comment on Talk:Tenedos as well. geonames.nga.mil seems like a fascinating tool, but I can't get it to work well for me--I don't see place names. BTW, I don't doubt that you're right on the naming in that database. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Working this week in Salt Lake City (we canceled our Montgomery Academy this week), home next week fishing, then off to Chicago for the Education Working Group meeting. After that Pittsburgh and Pictatinny, NJ, but should get half a dozen days in October on the rivers.  The link to the NGIA database in the RM was bad, but if you go to the Home Page and do a search, it should work fine.  I find it a very reliable source for foreign place names. --Mike Cline (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your schedule would kill me. Especially the fishing part must be hard to bear. (I picked up some delicious grouper last week at the Destin Connection on Norman Bridge; I'm sure you know the joint.) My invitation for Chicago must be in the mail. ;) Thanks for your oil on the waters around Tenedos; I left a fuller explanation on Chrisrus's talk page that I hope will satisfy him more. Well, let me know when you get to these parts; I owe you a beer or two. That sushi, that was something: one of the finest meals I had in years. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please add DGG
Mike, can you use your mysterious sysop powers to add DGG to the EWG member list on the charter page User:Mike Cline/USCAN Working Group Drafts? Thanks, The Interior  (Talk) 03:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Mike Cline (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Montana athletes
Mr. Cline:   Re:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Montana#Athletes        Levi Leipheimer is a winner of several Tour de France legs, let alone several other US & International races. Dave Silk (not the hocky player) is a member of the 1984 and 1988 US Olympic speed skating teams and competitor in related Olympics (among other International Races). All this info is stated in the attached references. Stop deleting this info. You are new to Bozeman, but you don't have any well-established, longtime knowledge of our community members. I grew up with these kids, and trained with them. Since this is a site delineating which Montana town they are from it is relevant to put if they are still living there or not (i.e., Dr. Silk's work in Helena and Butte). I see you spend a lot of time on this site. You should know to check before deleting relevant world records/facts that are already proven in cited references. Thanks for whatever work you do to improve this site, but please stop deleting important, relevant, factual work done by others. Dr. Mandich 04:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtmsquared (talk • contribs)
 * At least one of your problems is easily solved with the creation of Dave Silk (speed skater). This has nothing to do with being new to Bozeman or old to the world: Mike Cline is following Wikipedia guidelines and, take my word for it, he knows them well. Such lists should not include redlinks and if you want to include these people, don't give personal testimony but just write the article... Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

MSU Wikipedia Student Club
User: anish.bharatha wants to chat with you about the club ... please go to his talk page and leave a message ... is there a way to set our talk pages to push a message to an email that a new topic was generated on our talk page?? ... thanks, McMormor (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mike, How about you, me and Bonnie meeting this Friday at 11AM ? Does that sound good ? Anish.bharatha (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply Mike. I've reserved study room (1B) in Library for our meeting on Monday at 11AM. Anish.bharatha (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Consult
Since you're an admin I wanna ask you something. Dr.K has been somewhat harassing me lately. He've done it before successfully derailing a Wikiquette assistance thread. I feel like if I dig the talk pages I've posted on I'll find more and feel like it's not gonna stop either. I would be ok with it if he took his accusations to my talk page but his accusations are usually disruptive. He ignores whenever I tell him to take it to my talk page. What would you recommend? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, "successfully derailing a Wikiquette assistance request". I wonder how I did that. By some magic potion perhaps making editors not wanting to comment on your request. Did you also mention that I proved conclusively that your accusations of myself personally attacking Cinque stelle were false? Is it harassment that I tried to defend myself from your deliberate falsehoods? Mike, sorry for intruding on your talkpage this way, but please advise this editor to stop making false allegations against me. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. This editor misrepresented on his Wikiquette report my friendly advice to Cinque stelle as an attack and somehow he also failed to notify me that he did so. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

8th of March Revolution
Hello Mike Cline. Thanks for closing the rename request on the 8th of March Revolution and moving the page and the redirects. Just wanted to bring to your attention that you forgot to move the talk page, which is still at Talk:8th of March Revolution. Thanks again! Yazan (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I generally bear watching because I do make mistakes. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Beverly Hills
I know you closed the Beverly Hills RM a month ago, but I just became aware of it. Three aspects about that close bother me.
 * 1) I think it was closed prematurely.  Discussion was relatively heavy for the three days prior to the close, and did not seem to have even slowed down much when you closed it.  For this reason alone I think it should have been relisted at that time, not closed.  I suggest it's not too late to reopen and relist on these grounds alone.  I, for one, would like to put in my two cents. I know relisting is "entirely optional and up to the closer" (per WP:RMCI), but I think more priority should be given to relisting when "discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion", which was the case here (as you said in the closing, "consensus is split").
 * 2) I'm troubled by the following statement in your closing: "If editors believe USPLACE contradicts Commonsense and PrimaryTopic then fix the guidelines first."  This statement flies in the face of the whole point of WP:IAR, which is a WP pillar necessary precisely because consensus can change.  The guidelines are supposed to reflect actual practice, but if the guidelines must change before practice changes, and the guidelines must reflect actual practice, there is no way to change the guidelines or the practice when consensus does change.  This point is so often unappreciated I've addressed it in more detail in my FAQ: User:Born2cycle/FAQ.
 * 3) The USPLACE guideline mandating predisambiguation never reflected the actual practice or broad consensus of WP editors, since all these articles were unnecessarily disambiguated en masse by a bot (in the early days).  So it appears to reflect actual practice, but in reality the situation it reflects was created artificially, not organically establishing true consensus, one article at a time.

Accordingly, I request you consider reopening/relisting this discussion.

Thank you, --Born2cycle (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Treasure Mountain (Colorado)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

TfD for Template:Movenotice
I just closed the TfD for this template. Could you take care of orphaning it, and updating any useful pages which link to it? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Beverly Hills, again
For reasons explained at Talk:Beverly_Hills,_California, I've opened a new RM request/discussion at Talk:Beverly Hills,_California. You're receiving this notice because you participated in the last one. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nashville
I see you used the same flawed change the guideline first reasoning that you used at Beverly Hills to decide to move Nashville to Nashville, Tennessee. Again, I've explained the problem with this rationale at User:Born2cycle/FAQ. The Nashville case is even more troubling because there was no local consensus support for that move. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Governance
I adopted more or less all of your suggestions and have initiated the discussion with the task force (on the task force page, rather than the RfC talk page). One thing I wanted to bring to your attention is that I suspect the output of the structure group on governance (how the phase II board is selected and takes control, composition of the phase III board) is going to be in the critical path. We can't take the RfC to the working group for approval until the text is complete, and I'll be surprised if governance is not the last thing to be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * we agreed there is only one board. we will include the names in the late-October report to WMF. They approve it and the new board takes over Dec 1. Rjensen (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ready to go to the task force?
I'm ready to tell the task force to go take a look, prior to giving it to the WG to review. I see you're still tweaking a little. Do you want me to hold off? Any comments on the edits I just completed -- does it look OK to you? Mainly I was trying to simplify and get less needlessly specific. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Mike, please go for it. I can be a bit anal in wordsmithing and getting to concise meanings.  It is ready to go. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll email the task force now and ask for consensus or comment within 24 hours. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Unanswered question
Any chance you or one of your fellow working group members could provide an answer to this, please? Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, Mike. Yes; the question I wanted answered was "is the "> 0.1" percentage of the community that has participated/!voted in the RfC?". Would you be able to clarify what "The RfC discussion will (I hope) be evaluated on its merits" actually means? Does that mean "it will be taken as a representation of what the community thinks"? Ironholds (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So your perspective seems to be that it's hard to take any outcome seriously if there's a small number of people involved, and when some of them are making non-relevant arguments? Can you point me to an example of a non-relevant support or oppose? And, as said, pretty much every decision is made by a small number of people. Most editors are not metapedians. Ironholds (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to hear; hope your work goes well :). If/when you return I'd be interest to hear what arguments are non-relevant. Ironholds (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Mexican-American War
While I can see that Mexican-American War was not moved, this does not appear to be an appropriate closing. There are probably 10,000 reliable sources that say that it is spelled with a hyphen, and our own style guide says that "Hyphenation also occurs in bird names such as Great Black-backed Gull, and in proper names". I am sorry that I missed out (just kidding) on the lengthy discussion last year that oddly and incorrectly argued for a bizarre new use for the endash that no one else uses. Mexican-American War appears in the dictionary with a hyphen. Please explain. Apteva (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC) (moved from Apteva talk page to keep in one place)


 * Apteva, tough RM because of the past history of this move and the fact that you were the only one supporting the move as far as I can tell. This is one of those issues best worked out at the project/guideline level first as it is a battle between Commonname and MOS. If you believe the close did not follow the guidelines in WP:RMCI, please feel free to initiate a Move Review --Mike Cline (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you thought it was a battle between common name and MOS, policy vs. guideline, I would expect you to explain that in your closing remarks and choose policy over guideline. Case closed. Personally I think it is a case of common sense vs. lack of reading the MOS, which clearly says that proper names use hyphens. Oh wait, that is two reasons for using a hyphen. No reply needed - I will bring it up at move review. Apteva (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So far no one has commented there, so if you want to reverse the close you are welcome to, and the review will be retracted. Apteva (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Bibliographies
Hello there! I found you through the projects group related to bibliographies, and I think you might be the best person to talk to about what I'm asking. I should probably first warn you that I'm a little loopy since it is so close to bed for me, but once I get started thinking about something, it is usually better for me to do something about it if I want to get any sleep ;) Also, I am extremely new to Wikipedia and for every one thing I learn, it seems as though there are ten new things, so I apologize for any etiquette breaking or the like.

My goal on Wikipedia is to bring information to people about books. There are some real gems that I have found that I would not have found without some luck and/or detective work, and I would like to bring what I have found to the table so to speak. So far, I haven't done any lists officially, although I have added to some and I am trying to clean up some articles that are lists. My interest is inspirational fiction and historical fiction (a lot of times they go together). To get my feet wet, I've written two articles and edited a few others, and I think I'm going to keep trying to do something like that since it is part of my goals, but I would also like to make some lists. I saw you were interested in Western history, and I wasn't sure if you meant Western as in world history or American history, but I have found that history lovers have a connection no matter what period is their specialty. My specialty would be more Western as in world history, and from what I saw on your page, it seems you are interested in Western American history?

So, why am I contacting you? I was wondering if you would mind helping me through the whole list process? I have several ideas, but I'm not quite sure how to implement them. Right now, the biggest list I would like to make is of novels/fiction books based on the lives of English royals or having them as a character in a book. Another idea I had was novels/historical fiction that are significant as far as a state's history (similar to the list of fiction by country, but just by state).

Sorry, I hope it is okay to contact you this way and ask for help right out of the blue like this. I'm also not writing this assuming that you will help me, just asking with no pressure. If I'm annoying you, please tell me to stop! Also, if it is better that I ask somewhere else, please point me in the right direction. If you've gotten this far, thank you so much for reading! BookBard (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Bookbard, glad to help, but it will have to wait till Tues, as I out fishing and restricted to a IPhone --Mike Cline (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! There's no big rush, so any time is fine :)  Enjoy your fishing! BookBard (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In need of some advice on moverequest template
Hello Mike. You may recall about a year ago an extremely long discussion regarding a unilateral page move at Talk:Shishapangma. This tedious discussion was initiated by a requested move template, which was placed in part because, we as non-admins, were unable to move the article back to its previous title due to techinical reasons (non-empty redirect histories). Your involvement after nearly three months of the rest of us arguing back and forth was immensely valuable and desperately needed to finally resolve the problem. I'm pretty sure I thanked you at the time, but if not, consider this a huge THANKS! for what you did there.

The reason I bring it up is because currently I am involved in a discussion at Talk:Led Zeppelin (video). In this case we simply wish to move the article to Led Zeppelin DVD per a consensus we agree has been reached. Again, the execution of the move itself is not possible for non-admins because of what I assume are similar techinical reasons. As a solution, one editor has suggested that we place the Moverequest template at the talk page.

Is this the best way to go about getting the page moved? It seems that template will initiate a formal discussion on the move which will then close in 7 days. We already had the discussion and we have a consensus. In any case, I just want to make sure so we dont wind up with another mess like we had at Shishapangma. I don't know about you, but that unpleasant memory is still fresh in my mind. Thanks. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  23:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk Derry Move request
Hi Mike, My understanding was that an RFM had to remain open for 7 days...is this not true? Also several of the comments had been copied from an RFC at another page and were not a response to the 5 points I had made at the opening of the RFM. User:AjaxSmack made the point that the opposition points were weak, referencing archived discussions as the reason for objection. And a combination of research by myself and Dmcq showed that Derry and Londonderry were equally common. I have to ask why it was closed?46.7.113.111 (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Mike, the RFM was opened here . Its a complete joke that users are ignoring common sense to promote a pov. Get enough users together and we could have Hitler replaced as the son of God on wikipedia. Please at least look at the rationale for the motion before closing it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.113.111 (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I had requested RA to reinstate the RFM template here, but the request was ignored. This is what I'm working with.46.7.113.111 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mike, I have reapplied the RFM template here . Can you monitor this? and close of the discussion above this point? 46.7.113.111 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Mike, the discussion had already been speedily closed (by another). I reopened it at the request of the IP following persistent creation of RM threads on the same question by the IP over the last week (at WP:IECOLL, WP:IMOS and twice at Talk:Derry). The proposals and IP are disruptive IMO. A thread is open at Arbitration_enforcement. However, I doubt anything will come of it. -- RA (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point Mike, but looks at some of the opposing remarks, 2 users accused me if being another user. The problem here is that no matter what evidence is oresented, POV seems to rule. I've proved that my motion explicitly agrees with WP:Common name, but do you honestly think that users are likely to change their mind? Probably not. I was also called a troll which is uncivil. Now that's badgering.46.7.113.111 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As yet no one has come to my defence. I think the best way to diminish someones proposal is rather than present an opposing response is to insult them and accuse them of sockpuppetry, then say that they will not waste anymore time on the discussion. Progressive! Can I ask why the 20 odd comments were allowed to be copied from another page if they were not in response to the RFM?46.7.113.111 (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Mike, the discussion is dead. Too many drive by opposition points without any sound reasoning. The evidence and sources have been provided that show that Londonderry is a common name but Irish nationalist POV has ruined this project. You can read the discussion for yourself.46.7.113.111 (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Gun powder in article
Could you please intervene with the disruption of a wrangler at this article that is trying to turn the place into Wild West? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please explain
I would really appreciate it if you would explain your argument about why you think using City for primary topics would lead to more RM debates. See this section here: WT:PLACE  Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Heads up
Hi Mike. A couple years ago we had a conversation via private email and my address must have been added to your inbox. This evening I received a spam message coming from your sprynet email account, so there's a good chance that it's compromised. You may want to change your email password and run a malware test. Best of luck with this.  Them From  Space  03:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Danish Airmail
Hi Mike Ty for the quick resp.:-) After studying the printingplates on the danish postal museum, I must konclude that the fabrication of the plates has not been done as U discribe. Clichees in sets of 6 of 4 was made by acid on bronceplates. And not the whole 30 as U say. After this they were cut into singles and gathered in a set of 30 and melted into a block/plate. All this was made on the reproduction-plant where thiele ordered it. Thiele gave it Jubelee-lines and number before printing it. As this production methode was expencive compared with the few issues printed the was only made on plate pr. value. Together with the block of 30 clichees they recived a doublesized cliche, herefor the big 25 øre and the ditto 50 øre U show on wiki. The essays has been printed in diff. colours. Most of the colourprints U find that differs from the chosen ones occour in the 30-ties when collectors askes for colourchanges like what happened at the same time with the normal stamps. If I can get a picture of all ur material.; essays, proofs, colours and all U got on "Airplane ond plow" I would be happy. Futhermore If U know other who collect this set of stamps plz. let me know. When I look at Ur "stamps" on wiki I see A 6-block of 1kr blue. Must be colour from 1. or 2. trialprint When I look at Ur "stamps" on wiki I see A 10 øre red. Must be colour from 1. or 2 trialprint When I look at Ur "stamps" on wiki I see A Full-plate 15 øre blue. Must be colour from 2. trialpront. Makulated with a single Cross. When I look at Ur "stamps" on wiki I see A Black print 50øre and 1kr on same. Must be made by the foto-repriductionshop, with the loose clichées befor melting the blocks of 30. Might be extra clichées later!? With a better picture I might find them in the final plates. If not, ahh interresting:-) When I look at Ur "stamps" on wiki I see A Big black 50 øre, nice if unike(might bee) the giant cliché from one pf the first 3 issues has been manipulated so a new foto can be made with the new value(made too foto for production) When I look at Ur "stamps" on wiki I see A giant set of black 25 øre, this must be the reason why ppl thought that the whole plate was made as a 30block in acid. Why else make a setup than to mate a photo for reproduction. It puzzles me a bit but I think that this together with the other 3(I have a fotocopy of a 5-block, with Ue 2 in bottom). This setup must be from the start when the dicussion was weather to make a 25block or a 30 Block. As U know they chose the 30 block for a sheed. So bring omn Ur stuff:-) Br Jens (sry bout my english!)

Proposed deletion of Lorimerlite


The article Lorimerlite has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced content-free vanity page. As the author of this article seems so keen to delete all mention of it from the original page (now renamed), this attempt to recreate it under an already dismissed article name is just disruptive.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations!
I second that...thank you for all your fine contributions Mike!--MONGO 02:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And a merry Christmas to boot, thanks for all of your work, Mike.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 14:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Glacier National Park (U.S.) related articles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Northern Railway (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) 10:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK Nomination for Simms Fishing Products
Hello! Your submission of Simms Fishing Products at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cdtew (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I AGF in your citations to offline articles, and I probably shouldn't object based on your Highbeam links. I'm not a fan of Highbeam at all, but I understand that it's relied upon by many editors.  I'll go back and modify my comments to limit them to just the issues with neutrality, which I strongly believe are present.Cdtew (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Moving a page
Please move the name of this page to List of honours of the British Royal Family by country as it was the name of the article at first. Also its name should be like the other articles. For example List of honours of the Swedish Royal Family by country, List of honours of the Spanish Royal Family by country or List of honours of the Belgian Royal Family by country. Please do it if you can. Thanks. Keivan.f Talk 19:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Mike Cline (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Question
Hi Mike, question for you here in case it gets lost. I really would be interested to see the success stories to offset the ones we've been discussing. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

AFD Renomination
Several months ago, you commented on an AFD that was closed as no consensus. It has been renominated, and you may wish to comment again. Articles for deletion/List of defensive gun use incidents (2nd nomination) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close
I am notifying all participants in Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:


 * Link to the move to close

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

N oetica Tea? 04:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Additionally, I'll donate some time to Fort Yellowstone this weekend.MONGO 18:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Also...I oftentimes include details in my edit summaries as I work on an article...and I've been leaving notes at the GAC page for Fort Yellowstone. A couple sections still need expansion if possible. I'll hammer out a second introduction paragraph over the next couple days.--MONGO 17:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)