User talk:Nmillerche

Welcome message from WikiProject Editor Retention
This is being posted on your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four  ~  or by pressing or  in the editing interface tool box, located just above the editing window (when editing). Do not sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted, but only when using the article talkpage, yours or anothereditir's talkpage. Another valuable page that may provide information and assistance is User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information.

Good Luck and happy editing! ```Buster Seven   Talk  02:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sara Mayhew
Hello! Your submission of Sara Mayhew 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! Jmabel &#124; Talk 19:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sara Mayhew
Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Andrew Sprowle
Carabinieri (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Leo Igwe
Carabinieri (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers
Chamal T •C 17:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sharon A. Hill
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bad Astronomy
The DYK project (nominate) 16:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech
 * 1) List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech.
 * 2) Add userbox User Freedom of speech to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
 * 3) Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 4) Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 5) Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tracking the Chupacabra
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Human combustion
Hi Nmillerche, I think this edit is going into too much details. The coverage of that case has been very limited moreover, I think we should refrain from adding such extra coverage from a news source because after all, we can't include everything what they report about it. The para on that case should be kept precise and compact since it's just an example, not the topic in the article. Would you reconsider? By the way, great work so far on you DYKs! -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ugog Nizdast. Looking at the paragraph now, I agree with you that my addition was heavy on the extra coverage (police being alerted doesn't really have anything to do with SHC as a subject itself). I admit I may have been a little enthusiastic to see some press coverage actually focusing on what the doctors had to say, instead of (it seemed to me) asking the doctors SHC questions and printing those answers. I'm condensing it while keeping all sources; perhaps other editors will improve it further. Thanks again for the feedback. Nmillerche (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then it's all good, it is confusing while working on recent events articles, as the press keeps reporting speculations and daily updates. It gets hard sometimes especially on when to show restraint. I've learnt it's best to wait for the dust to settle on such cases, not to get too hasty since we are not a news site. See you around :), Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sara Mayhew


The article Sara Mayhew has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Prodding on behalf of IP, his complaint was: failure to meet notability standards. Unreliable, non-independant sources rampantly used; no awards of note.

While all constructive 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Renaming Skeptically Speaking
Skeptically Speaking is now "Science for the people". I looked up renaming a page, but it seems a bit confusing as I haven't done it before and to make it more of a pain there is already a page named "science for the people." And I think you have to be some sort of admin, I don't know. But I thought I'd ask you to see if you could help. thanks.. Cap020570 (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Cap020570. Instead of renaming the page outright, I created a new page and replaced the current one with a redirect, so no links will be broken. I also added disambiguation notices to the tops of both the show's and the political organization's articles. Perhaps there's something else we can do to make it a bit more tidy, but this seemed a fair solution at present. I also moved the talk page over to keep the page associated with pertinent Wikiprojects. Will keep an eye on it moving forward. Nmillerche (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! Cap020570 (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pamela L. Gay
Looks good except I'm not quite making the connection between moon mapping and home computers. HalfGig  talk  00:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks HalfGig . Per the mapping project site, users can submit results through a mapping interface from anywhere, not just home computers. I have added an alternate hook to better reflect the article verbiage, if you don't mind giving it another look. Thanks again, Nmillerche (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Pamela L. Gay
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Can easily get you blocked" (was: Re: Joe Nickell, &agrave; la Benjamin Radford)
I'll cc to you what I left for UKoch the other day.

You people surely irritate a person.

I added FACTUAL information based upon my PERSONAL acquaintance with the two gentlemen AND my International Society of Cryptozoology membership for a number of years. There are no documentary sources. Funny, but I thought I had added, "Bruce David Wilner, various personal conversations, year X." Have you, O great guru, never encountered such a reference in a scholarly context? Perhaps you should read peer-reviewed scholarly material now and again.

Who are YOU to determine what information is correct and what information is incorrect? Are you inside Nickell's or Radford's head(s)?

You should keep YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS about unexplained phenomena out of Wikipedia, IMHO, since you clearly know zero about them. Your articles (remarkably, unwritable to those more knowledgeable) pooh-pooh everything that isn't fully understood. By your Luddite approach, there is clearly nothing left for mankind to learn. BUT, WAIT. . . by the time we get to 12/31/14 and have learned X, Y, and Z (thereby contradicting previously learned U, V, and W), will you insist on sticking to your guns?

No wonder the quality of Wikipedia declines steadily. . . and I apologize if my writing is too learned and incorporates too many brilliant metaphors.

(INSERT NOT GIVEN TO UKoch: Let me tell you a secret about scientists and professors, having served as both. THEY ARE FAR MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR TENURE THAN ABOUT THE IMPARTIAL SEARCH FOR TRUTH.  This is reflected in the OBVIOUS fact [mentioned two paragraphs supra] that&mdash;despite the assertion that "we fully understand [whatever]"&mdash;further understanding that REVERTS our current "full" understanding is TYPICALLY forthcoming, yet the BLATANT GAFFE is never acknowledged.)

(Of course, when some "useful contributor" edits, say, a mathematics article by adding information that is completely non-explanatory, muddled [at best], and largely irrelevant&mdash;but shows the world what a self-styled guru the contributor is by means of how much Greek and Latin "alphabet soup" [as Prof. Bailyn used to say] he can interject&mdash;about THAT y'all cheer. Rest assured, if I added "1 + 1 = 2" to some mathematics-oriented article, some schmuck would come along and add pages' worth of entirely irrelevant set theory so we can all behold how&mdash;here it comes&mdash;brilliant and superhumanly knowledgeable and, above all, pedagogically flawless he is.  Sure, that's why&mdash;in all my endeavors to [e.g.] find another computer scientist who could define "computer" in one sentence&mdash;I have yet to collect a single adequate response.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.184.140 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I'm BruceDavidWilner but rarely bother so to sign in.

(( plus, ==You have new messages from another user???== ))

Since I deposited the edit immediately supra for UKoch last night, I got a "new messages" notification&mdash;but there aren't any.

I see: another mechanism, fully debugged, is used only by the most senior folk ;-) Typical B-plus-to-A-minus programmers who are so infatuated by their own "brilliance" that they cannot be bothered to test and debug their own work&mdash;since, of course, their work is perfect by definition.

How about responding to my criticism in adult fashion?

And, by the way, in the article on MPEG-H, WHAT KIND OF CRITICISM IS "THIS ARTICLE ONLY RELIES ON PRIMARY SOURCES; PLEASE ADD SECONDARY OR TERTIARY" -- ? If one gives sources, some sysop (I only semi-humorously adopt this term for the characteristic sixteen-year-old moderator of an AOL community or, like, mIRC chat room) bitches; if one withholds sources, some other sysop bitches.

You folks REALLY need to get your act together. Unbeflippin'lievable. 50.128.184.140 (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have responded with an explanation of the reversions I made on the Talk Page of the article I surmise you are referencing. I cannot speak for other editors' revisions on separate pages, but if you have questions as to why content is removed, or as to how it might be more reliably cited such that it conforms to Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons (WP:BLP) and Verifiability (WP:V) policies, it might be beneficial to contact those editors, or initiate a discussion on that article's talk page. Please assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. We are all trying to improve the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia and are learning as we go. Opening with accusations or name-calling does not further this aim. Nmillerche (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Penny4NASA DYK nomination question
Hello! Your submission of Penny4NASA 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! &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * alf laylah wa laylah, thank you for reviewing the article. I cannot say I disagree with your concerns, and will work to see if we can add some more secondary sources to support the article content. Regardless of this article's fate, I appreciate your taking the time to review and provide input, which I will use to improve, if not this article, articles that I work on in the future. v/r, Nmillerche (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Okey dokey. Good luck.  It may be that it's OK as it is, but I just can't be sure because I'm pretty new at reviewing DYKs.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emily Lakdawalla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Titan (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) 09:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Materials science dispute
Hi. I notice from your user page you have an interest in materials science. A protracted dispute at Energetically modified cement has recently erupted onto the Administrator's noticeboard at Ani and I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing the situation and tossing in your 2 cents (either at the article's talk page or the AN thread - or anywhere, really). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Emily Lakdawalla
Hello! Your submission of Emily Lakdawalla 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! Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Emily Lakdawalla
Thanks for making April 1st special Victuallers (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sharon A. Hill
Noticed your revert of my edit. Also glad to see that you agreed about about the repetition.  Jodosma   (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Was trying to revert a quotation that failed verification from its cited source, and your corrective edit got caught in the mix. Thanks. Nmillerche (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Penny4NASA
Hello! Your submission of Penny4NASA 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This is more of a courtesy notification, since you haven't been editing much lately, and not at all since the most recent post at the template, and the sourcing had potential problems that you acknowledged. If you do see this before the nomination closes, by all means feel free to comment there, and if you think you can still bring the article into compliance, let us know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Astronomical Society of New South Wales
Thanks for your comments on Template:Did you know nominations/Astronomical Society of New South Wales. I am responding here rather than in that thread, because I am new to this process and I need to ask for guidance. If you don't think that is appropriate, please just met me know.

The situation is this: once I moved the article to mainspace, I let the Astronomical Society know. They then made changes to both the WP article and their Web pages. I had used their Web pages as the source for straightforward information such as the society's meetings. The changes they made were good information, but the society changed both places to be exactly the same, so now some parts of the WP article are identical to the Web page. Both were changed together by the same author, so there is no copyvio in either direction as far as I can see - but I am a newbie to this sort of thing.

And this is where I need advice, and I was hoping you might be able to give me some kind of pointer. A reviewer who compares the article to the Web today probably could not distinguish it from copy-paste. I am reluctant to rewrite large sections of the article simply to make it different, when the same situation could arise again tomorrow. Can you suggest a productive way forward? --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Gronk Oz, I think I better understand the situation now. Unfortunately, the author being the same as the person who manages the web page is still a copyvio as far as Wikipedia is concerned; it is possible to copyvio oneself here. If you can point me to the problematic edits, copyvio additions can be reverted with the edits made by the user who made them, and I can try to explain the situation to the editor in question, whose history indicates they are relatively new (in terms of number of edits) and made a common mistake.


 * The other option is to run those additions through a comparison tool (I use Text Compare) to easily change them enough to avoid close paraphrasing. I can help you with that as well. Just let me know which edits are the most problematic. Nmillerche (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Christmas Wishes
Christmas wishes --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gronk Oz, best wishes to you as well! Nmillerche (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And now it's time to wish you all the best for the New Year, too...

Your submission at Articles for creation: Niko Alm (January 15)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Niko Alm and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Niko Alm, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Niko_Alm Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Niko_Alm reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Nmillerche! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Niko Alm


Hello, Nmillerche. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Niko Alm".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)