User talk:Mike Searson/archive6

ORCompanies
First, watch the language, and there is not an "elitist category" as it is a template. As explained where you wrote, the template would be way too big if every company in Oregon was listed (there are more than 200 companies in Category:Companies based in Oregon and subcats) plus nav templates should not be a mirror of a category, as the category does the job just fine. Next, the $100 million is not an absolute minimum, and its not the main reason all of the knife companies you added were removed. Two of the companies are subsidiaries, the third (Benchmade) had revenue of $8.5 million in 2007 which is not anywhere near $100 million or even $50 million. There may be some that need to be removed, as companies are bought out, move, or spin off divisions so they are no longer a large company. Just please discuss it at the talk page, as WP:BOLD specifically encourages regarding templates. Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

New article on Chris Reeve Knives
Mike -- thanks for the welcome several weeks ago. I am quite impressed with the body of work that you've executed as a wikipedian! I've initiated a new article on the Chris Reeve Knives. It's got a ways to go, but I'm thinking that the basic framework is correct. If you would do me the honor of a critique, and make any edits you see fit, I would appreciate it. Jumpcoach (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would love to work on Bob T's article. Although I know little about Bob, and shamefully don't even own one of his custom knives, I have a standing dinner with him and some other friends at the Blade Shows, and have really grown fond of him. Jumpcoach (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I have references to add for Anne's Chronology article, and the publishing info for the novels. Not sure how to do a reference for the movies -- I'm sure I can find an example. I'd really like a picture of the trio of Lg and sm sebbies and an Umfaan, but I don't have one. I've got the CRK logo -- I'll half to figure out how to put it in the infobox. Sorry that you sold your original Sebbie. I'm somewhat of a collector of old Sebbies, but I don't have an "H" Sebenza. I think they're going for a small fortune if they can be found. Question -- does Wikipedia do a good job of preventing editors from stomping on each other's work due to concurrent editing of the same article? Jumpcoach (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice changes/additions. Thanks! Jumpcoach (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mike -- I'd like to include the CRK logo, but to protect CRK, I don't want to make a good copy of the logo available to others (yeah, I imagine if someone really wanted the logo, they could grab it elsewhere). Is there any way to upload the logo w/o making it available to others? Jumpcoach (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain article
Hi there. I noticed that you work on featured articles a bit, and are interested in military history. Yesterday, the article about John McCain attained featured status, and I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping to keep an eye on it. It contains a good bit of military history. The article will be particularly vulnerable for the next three months leading up the presidential election, so the more eyes on it the better. Thanks, and I hope you can help.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Varanus salvadorii
Nice to be working with you again! I think that since the monitor is known by so many names, we would be better off moving it to Varanus salvadorii instead. I've heard Papua monitor, Papuan monitor, croc monitor, tree crocodile, Salvadori's monitor, but I've never heard Artelia before. Since it has so many names, it might be prudent of us just to use the scientific name.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think unless there's one very common name, like Komodo dragon, we should have a Latin article name. What say we move the page to V. salvadorii?  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead, moved it, fixed the redirects, changed the article to say V. salvadorii, and changed the template to say "Crocodile monitor," which I feel is a more common name.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 19:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Varanoids
I'll be happy to take a break from the incessant drama at WT:RFA and focus my attention on monitors. I'm hoping to get salvadorii to GA status. By the way, thanks for the Komodo article. I used it to add some stuff to the article. Who says an FA can't be improved?  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've fixed up Emerald tree monitor and added from some stuff of my own. The only major thing that needs to be done is citations for the Taxonomy section.  bibliomaniac 1  5  21:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Beccari needs a LOT of love, that's for sure. I have a suspicion that there are quite a few errors in the article.  bibliomaniac 1  5  19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree. The black tree article said that the species name beccari was derived from the Latin caesius, which is a connection I can't fathom at all. V. prasinus wasn't too bad; after I cleaned it up and added a whole bunch of stuff I could say confidently that it was C-class. I may look into indicus, but after a skim it seems to be the best written out of the three. It has all the content; all it really needs is a good copyedit and then it's on its way to GAN. Keep me updated on those varanids! I'd like to help.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried Flickr, but the best I could find was a close up (but quite high-definition) photo of a foot, and it was copyrighted. What expo in question might you be going to?  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Too far away for this Angeleno!  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Article on Chris Reeve
Mike, I'd like your advice. I've been working on a Chris Reeve article, focusing more on the man, and facts about him beyond his establishment of CRK. There is a Christopher Reeve entry for the actor, and an article "Chris Reeve" that is a redirection to the Christopher Reeve article. I'm wondering if removing this redirection and replacement with my article would be a preferred solution. What do you think? If that is a solution I should pursue, is there a process by which I should do it? Thanks for your help. Jumpcoach (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Initial entry published.  Jumpcoach (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

GAN
If no one takes Ctenosaura bakeri, I'll look at it tomorrow. It's getting a bit late over here. How's the iguana work going?  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Good luck on your other nomination too.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
Glad to hear it. I know the DYK process can seem a little arbitrary sometimes but I'd have hated to see you driven away by one bad incident. I look forward to seeing your submissions in future! Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 16:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review/Roman Catholic Church/archive3
You might care to comment here on my attempts to get the early Celtic church mentioned in the article, and indeed anything else. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Beaded Lizard
As a matter of fact, I was starting it in my Sandbox, but you beat me to it. I'll take a good look over it then.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Undos
What's with the weird undo edit summaries?  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop that? That's pretty uncivil, and namecalling will just encourage them to do more damage.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA.  Nancy Heise    talk  23:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Beaded Lizard
Good show with that. It's a GA now. I planned to add info from my sources and do some extra copyediting before GAN, but I suppose I'll have to do it after.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We would also need Heloderma at at least GA. I'll take a look at that skink, too.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given Solomon Island skink a good copyedit. My only suggestion is that your "Further reading" section should be formatted with cite book or cite journal.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Re your message to me, do you mean a reviewer objected to your saying something about the evolution of another reptile? -- Philcha (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops! My "proof reading" at Talk:Solomon Islands skink might be referring to an old version of the text!
 * "... (Blue Iguana) a species which diverged from the Cuban Iguana " is dubious, as it implies that that the Cuban was there first and a faction went off and founded the Blues. The corresponding sentence in Blue Iguana says the Blues, the Cubans and A.N.Other diverged from a common ancestor, which is fine.
 * Re "Further reading", the GA reviewer for Small Shelly fauna said that such sections are mainly "accumulated cruft" and that these works should be cited inline or deleted. I thought her comment was a bit broadbrush, but applying it worked fine for Small Shelly fauna. So now I'm incline dto think that works in "Further reading" should bear a heavy burden of proof. -- Philcha (talk)

Solomon Islands skink
I see the red urine's back, still w/o ref. I've already told Serrata that it needs a WP:RS ref (see User talk:Serrata). If you wish to complain to Serrata about WP:DE I'll back you up (I'm watching User talk:Serrata for now). If, after another unsourced re-addition of red urine, you wish to make a formal compaint of WP:DE, I'll support that too. -- Philcha (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just warned Serrata for breaking WP:3RR, and I'll give you the same warning - this is something that should be raised on the talk page, rather than endlessly reverted back and forth. For what it's worth, excessive reverting is counter-productive from both sides - a persistent reverter will back down far more quickly if he sees his edits being reverted by several different editors. By rushing in and reverting it yourself each time, it's easier for the other editor to assume that only one person disagrees with him, and to ignore it. --McGeddon (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking it to the talk page, I just wanted to make sure you were both aware of WP:3RR. It does seem a no-brainer that we shouldn't be using the word "urine" without a source, but it's possible we're both missing what Serrata is actually getting at. --McGeddon (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is definitely getting into lamest edit wars territory. I think 3RR-warning both his account and IP should be enough; if he makes the same change again from either, it'll be enough to report it as vandalism and get both the account and IP temporarily blocked until he calms down.

For future reference, you should sign template warnings, so that it doesn't look like a faceless, automated Wikipedia message, and so that people know who to talk or apologise to. You should also "substitute" them ( rather than  ), for wiki performance reasons. --McGeddon (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Everyone's support means a lot to me but I want you to know that I am especially appreciative of yours because of your earlier opposes. I am very happy that you find the article has improved to your satisfaction and standards. I think it is much better than earlier FAC's too and I'm glad it failed the earlier FAC's for the simple reason that it kept evolving into something better each time. Thanks!  Nancy Heise    talk  03:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

RCC official name
Mike I have removed mention of "official name" and changed the lead to say exactly what our best source says. It now reads Roman Catholic Church, more commonly and properly known as Catholic Church (Latin: Ecclesia Catholica). Soidi, an editor who made the most noise about use of the word "official" is now insisting that we also remove the Latin translation in the lead. I was wondering if you could come to the RCC talk page and give us your thoughts in the matter since you were the one who wished to see it in the lead. Someone else suggested putting it in a note. I think it is fine and justified being in the lead. We could use your input here. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  14:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to help with the Cutlery WikiProject
I am a former custom knife maker and I noticed that the Knife making page needs a bit of help. I don't have a ton of time to devote, but as I get moments I'd like to help out with this page and perhaps other sections as part of the Cutlery project.

I made knives for 17 years and spent a lot of time at fairs and shows describing knife making to laypeople. I'm very new to Wiki editing, though, so I'd appreciate any guidance from experienced editors as to the best way to go about doing things.

Regards,

Aradams (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

report to Administrator intervention against vandalism
Please provide examples here of the "personal attacks" that you have accused of. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Template Substitution
Hi there, and thank you for using templates on Wikipedia. On one of your recent edits you used a template that should have been substituted but you did not subst it. Please subst templates that are meant to be substed in the future. Please take a look at Substitution to learn more about it. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you need any more help or want to reply to this please contact me on my talk page. Thanks.  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 14:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

New Consensus sought on lead sentence
Please come give us your opinion by voting here, Thanks!  Nancy Heise    talk  17:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here but this is on whether or not you think the sources support the article text in note 1 which follows Catholic Church in the lead sentence. Soidi has challenged that my sources do not support the text. Please come give me your opinion so I can have consensus either one way or the other so we can move forward.   Nancy Heise    talk  03:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Further discussion on achieving compromise on this issue is ongoing on the Talk Page.  Xan  dar  00:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

One last vote please
Hi, Xandar conducted a new discussion on the use of "official" our original sentence going into FAC that survived Peer Review and several months of mutliple editors. I have agreed not to vote on this one but to agree to whatever consensus of editors decides. Can you please come back for one more vote here:. Thanks for you help in deciding the matter once and for all.  Nancy Heise    talk  15:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

V. salvadorii GAN
Hey, I nominated Varanus Salvadorii for GAN. There are a few factual questions I'm not so sure about. Could you help me?  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
For your vote at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article.  Nancy Heise    talk  01:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ctenosaura quinquecarinata
Moved, and redirects have been fixed.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Knives template
Thank you for your kind words concerning Template:Knives. I just looked like something needing to be done so I did it.  Linguist At Large  19:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hydrodynastes gigas
Hi Mike, You don't seem to appreciate the formatting that I've applied to snake articles such as Hydrodynastes gigas, but that's okay. I've tried to explain my rationale for it here. Like I say, I started out following WP:LEAD, but that method soon struck me as being so inefficient and inelegant for this particular task, that I just couldn't see myself writing and formatting over 100 articles like that. It's unfortunate that it's sometimes only regarded as a weird departure from WP:LEAD, but I still don't have any regrets either. --Jwinius (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize you did it, my friend. I actually did like it, but I didn't think it was necesary for a species with only a few common names.  It looks like it might work great on many articles where there is little to no content at the stub/start level.  I thought I was helping by incorporating it into the text instead of having fragments in the body, etc. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit to add: OK, I see it on a few other pages...would it be possible to add that to the Taxobox? I like it, but find it a bit distracting above the LEAD.  Did you bring this up on the Project page?  I would not mind incorporating that into a few other pages, although as a lizard guy it can get more confusing with the same common name being used across seven species or a single species having 14 common names.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To me it doesn't matter whether a species has many common names, a few, just one, or even none at all. In almost all cases, and particularly in this respect, I like to be completely consistent. Ultimately, I'd like the introduction of every snake article to look like Agkistrodon piscivorus. Most still look like Ovophis chaseni, which still has a long way to go, but at least the format is already there.
 * Could the common names be added to the taxobox? Perhaps, but first I don't think that snakeskin has reached that level of acceptance yet, and second I don't think that the taxobox was ever meant to organize common names with -- it's for taxonomy. On the other hand, maybe a separate template would be a good idea, but to work it would have to 1.) accommodate the necessary references, 2.) automatically display a separate "Common names" section whenever there are more names than will fit on a single line above the lead, and 3.) be able to display one or more comments like in the "Common names" section of the Agkistrodon piscivorus article.
 * Of course, the great advantage of using a template to control the format of the common names would be that we could control how they are presented and change that for all such articles whenever we wanted. Actually, I've never been completely happy with the way the names are currently presented above the lead -- I just like the idea of having them separate and at the very beginning of the article where they are more visible. An advanced template might even allow us to present the names in a way that is currently beyond our reach. We could call it the "cnames" template.
 * Have I ever raised this issue at WP:AAR? No, actually not. Do you think the others might be interested? As for their being so many synonyms and homonyms among the common names for lizards, that exactly why I hate to use common names for article titles. Because they have always been so maligned and misunderstood, if anything the problems in that area are even worse with snakes! Nevertheless, as long as they are documented, I have always mentioned every common name that I have come across for a species and created a redirect for it to the article. If that redirect has already been used to point to something else, then I change it into a Set Index Article, e.g. Bastard rattlesnake (because category tags are no longer allowed on pages). Cheers, (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you 100% on using scientific names for articles (with appropriate redirects using common names); I definitely think it's worth bringing up to the project and it might even put to rest the complaints of "using the official common name". I kid you not, someone actually said that.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That is another issue that is even more important, but is currently politically much more sensitive. As you can see here, the botanists among us managed to persuade the Tree of Life people to see the light (that was in 2006), but so far the zoologists have had no such luck. That is not going to be an easy battle for us to win. I suspect that the general situation will first have to become worse before our opponents are prepared to listen to reason. Either that, or it will one day have to become evident that massive numbers of editors are simply refusing to work that way.
 * Anyway, the argument that an article looks confusing if a common name is not used for the title is one of the reasons that I felt compelled to create this alternative format. If we can get this format, or something like it that follows the same principle, accepted at WP:AAR, then I believe that it will not only improve our articles, but it may eventually help all of the zoologists among us to counter the aforementioned argument in any future battles over article titles. --Jwinius (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

colt 1911 meu soc grips
hi mike i'm riccardo from italy i red your wonderfull article about 1911 meusoc and i saw the photo of your gun i have one request, can you put an high quality photo of this splendid gun? because i can't understand which version of Strider Gunner Grips you have

i search on the net but seems that in your colt there is also the usmc logo is a limited edition?

best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.56.178.140 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Conolophus rosada
Thanks! :) Shrumster (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A potential Featured Article of a different sort
I thought you may want to give some feedback to User:Marek69 who is working on Pope John Paul II to bring it up to FAC. As an atheist, I have not a clue as to what to leave in and out with respect to much of the material, and figured you'd have a much better idea. I fully respect and admire anyone who tries to get a big article like this Featured and figured consensus beforehand might be better than at FAC...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

English translation needed
Mike, can you read this and tell me what it says? I just want to know if it says this and agrees with what is written here. Thanks for your help, let me know if you cant do this.  Nancy Heise    talk  06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II nomination
Hi Mike, I've noticed you've edited the Pope John Paul II article recently. I have put the article into the collaboration queue on WikiProject Catholicism, to get some ‘fresh eyes’ on it before we nominate it for GA. If you have some time, please vote for it here --     05:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RFM
I began a Request for Mediation here and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here to agree to participate. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Williamson
I think that too. But even a dangerous nutter must be quoted accurately. Str1977 (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And regardless where you put it, the quote in that form is a fabrication, not so much by the Telegraph but by you. Furthermore, such quotes in references are totally superfluous. We link to the article and that's enough. Str1977 (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That quote is from the telegraph, read it about halfway down...it's from a sermon he did in Canada that might still be on YouTube.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I have already read the Telegraph article and it does not contain this one quote. It is two quotes from the Telegraph transferred into one by you. They give the interview quote and in the next paragraph give the Canadian quote, but without any explanation. The only way that this can be one quote is if it is a Telegraph (instead of Williamson) quote. I am sure that he said it and the interviewer introduces the linked section by quoting these words. But our job is not to assemble any quote (let alone fabricate one). The whole matter has already been covered in the text to the full extent. We don't need that quote. Str1977 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I know. You don't to quote it to me. We simply don't need these longish quotes. Str1977 (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, if you are around and can find the time could you please have an eye on the Williamson article. There is an IP going around, trying to whitewash Williamson's records (e.g. turning "conspiracy theories" into "non-mainstream alternative views". Str1977 (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And now we have User:ZzzP1 removing "tabloid style". 01:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.