Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:04, 11 February 2012

Archives

2007-2009 2010 Jan-Jun 2011 Jul-Dec 2011

Help

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

ping

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

Re:

Disambiguation link notification

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

List of cemeteries in Wyoming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Greenwood Cemetery, Mount Olivet Cemetery, Fairview Cemetery, Mount Hope Cemetery, Mountain View Cemetery, Riverview Cemetery, Riverside Cemetery, City Cemetery and Odd Fellows Cemetery

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

Red herring

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

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

Your closure of RW at Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh

See Talk:Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh: you seem to have overlooked a key factor in the appeals to RS Kevin McE (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Las Vegas Requested Move

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

I just saw this. As stated above, I thought the statement about harmful titles indicated a sloppy evaluation, but I did not realize that a majority supported the move. Still, what matters is the quality of the arguments, and Mike did not address this at all in his closing statement. The lack of harm by the current title, which he did note, is a completely irrelevant red herring, since, in practice, there is no such thing as harmful title, and so a title not being harmful should not be a characteristic of significance in evaluating an RM proposal.

So, we're essentially left with an unexplained close which was supported by the majority. Disappointing. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

it really is the end of the world. Stock up on canned goods.MONGO 14:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're around...

Want to help de-escalate this before it hits the drama boards and wastes all of our time? Franamax is on it, but FYI as you have the history. Misplaced Pages:ANI#I_was_referred_here_by_Calabe, User_talk:Franamax#Thank_you_for_your_time, User_talk:Soglad_Tomeetyou#Your_HelpDesk_query_.2F_ANI_report and User_talk:Montanabw#I_was_referred_to_WP:ANI_by_Calabe (and the rest of my talk page, for that matter? What is going on, is it Pick on Montanabw week or something?) Montanabw 18:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Google search

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

Move request for Quebec comics

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

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

Re relisting of Kolkata

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest pear and purple Yogo sapphire photos

See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Latest_pear_and_purple_photos. Hope you think they're better, and just in time for the Great Wiki Blackout of jan 2012! PumpkinSky talk 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Re Kurdish-Turkish conflict move

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

Hello Mike Cline. I'm sorry I was late for the discussion, I was working on Turkish wikipedia. I'm planning to make an RM soon, as the current name of the article does not reflect the conflict's nature.

The armed conflict covered in this article is between Turkish state (Turkish army, police and gendarmeire) and Kurdish group PKK and its affliates (KCK, PJK, PJAK); so it is completely wrong to name the article as "Kurdish-Turkish conflict", as Kermanshahi requested. Article does not mention any historical Kurdish uprisings (you can see them in Kurdish rebellions page), it only focuses on the "PKK vs Turkey" conflict. There were quite numerous Kurdish uprisings for the past two centuries, which can be seen at Kurdish rebellions page already. "Kurdish-Turkish conflict" should be a redirect to Kurdish rebellions page.

There is a Kurdish-Turkish conflict, I totally agree; but it is not limited to PKK-Turkey conflict. We should keep this article's scope to only reflect "PKK vs Turkey", and keep the overall Kurdish-Turkish conflict in rebellions article. Also, redirects such as "Kurdish uprising" should be directed to "Kurdish rebellions" article, and PKK-Turkey conflict should also be a subtopic of this new article.

I'll keep you informed for the RM. Thanks for your message, have a nice day :) --Khutuck (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN mention

You were mentioned in a discussion at WP:AN; Misplaced Pages:AN#Should_editors_be_discouraged_from_asking_admins_to_justify_their_actions.3F --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Mass move

In my book, two comments does not make a lack of consensus, particularly when one of the comments was by an IP editor with no other edits anywhere. The fact that only one actual regular editor commented does not mean the discussion should have been closed. I would like if you relisted it or made it so it had a wider audience.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case you didn't write the book, I did. No one supported the moves in the discussion and two opposed it, with reasonably sound arguments. Two opposes, good arguments against and no one other than the nominator supporting the move equals No consensus in the discussion. You are always free to initiate another RM if you think there is support for your proposed move. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There was zero input aside from one person because an administrator like yourself should know to not count an argument from someone with zero prior edits. And Powergate92 referred to the last discussion, which was also him just arguing with me one on one. I want a wider audience on this shit because one proposal and one actual editor not agreeing with the proposal based on a discussion from a year ago does not make a consensus either way according to any sort of common sense.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate salmon flies

Thanks Mike. I didn't know that — the lists seemed to serve separate purposes. MistyMorn (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel it might be helpful to provide clearer pointers in the ledes to let readers know how the three lists have been arranged. When I came to the Bibliography of fly fishing page, I couldn't see anything to tell me that this wasn't the main list of 'historical' works. While adding in the old man's tome, I did actually stumble upon it in Bibliography of fly fishing (fly tying, stories, fiction). Being a notable 19th century work, I was slightly surprised to find it there, although I can certainly see why some of it could end up on the fiction shelf... My two flying cents, MistyMorn (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mike - I'm giving the question some thought. MistyMorn (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A poor cast, I fear... You'll probably want to correct. Regards, MistyMorn (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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

My statement to Elen

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

Notice concerning an action at ArbCom

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

DRV

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

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

Bozeman Carnegie Library

Hi Mike. I started this article and will soon list it at DYK. I used one of your photos. Feel free to jump in improving, writing, taking more pics, whatever. PumpkinSky talk 22:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

and this--File:West Yellowstone, MY.jpg can you delete the en wiki copy? I moved it to Commons. PumpkinSky talk 02:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lonesomehurst Cabin, another one you may want to help with. PumpkinSky talk 14:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Added you to DYK credit for the library article. PumpkinSky talk 15:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation case

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

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

misspelling

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

San Alberto District, Paraguy is an intentional template:R from misspelling. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Bozeman Carnegie Library

On 1 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bozeman Carnegie Library, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bozeman Carnegie Library was intentionally built across from Bozeman, Montana's red-light district and opium dens? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bozeman Carnegie Library.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Bande à part vs Band of Outsiders

In light of your previous participation in film titling issues, the discussion at Talk:Bande à part (film)#Requested move may be of interest.—Roman Spinner (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

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

War of the Triple Alliance

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

DYK nomination of Nez Perce in Yellowstone Park

Hello! Your submission of Nez Perce in Yellowstone Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Daniel Case (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Party of Quebec

Hello. I see you have closed the move discussion at Talk:Conservative Party of Quebec (historical)#Requested move as no consensus, and have not moved any of the pages. But doesn't this mean that things should be reverted to how they were before the moves? i.e. Conservative Party of Quebec (modern) → Conservative Party of Quebec (2009), or the somewhat consensus name Conservative Party of Quebec (2009—present)? Also, would I violate the decision if I move Conservative Party of Quebec leadership elections to Conservative Party of Quebec (historical) leadership elections? 117Avenue (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You free to make any moves you see fit that do not require admin intervention to deal with existing redirects. -Mike Cline (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. 117Avenue (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

RM for Paraguayan War

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

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

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

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

Again, sorry for the page view numbers confusion, I must be more careful. --Mike Cline (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your closing rationale. I, too, didn't think of pageview stats as a significant factor as, after all, redirects ensure that the reader will find his or her way to the desired article; I was just caught off-guard by the prospect of 'Paraguayan War' being viewed 10–20 times more than 'War of the Triple Alliance'. As far as Ghits are concerned, I'm reluctant to rely on them too much as minor changes often can skew the results dramatically – for instance, my own search of Google Books showed about three times as many hits for WTA (173K) as PW (57K), but I realize that slight modifications would change these numbers.

Anyway, I better understand your reasoning now and, though I don't agree completely, recognize why you closed the discussion as you did. Thanks again, -- Black Falcon 07:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sorry but I think you're either constructing a strawman there or misunderstanding my point. My comment was (emphasis added) "if you care to look closer almost always the reference work will be a History of Brazil where they reflect the Brazilian name for the conflict (usually noting it is generally referred to as the War of the Triple Alliance). I did not claim they were Brazilian publications. Further I would ask you to note that I was the one in the RM discussion urging calm and that comments referring to it as POV were unhelpful. War of the Triple Alliance is three times more common in English that is the point, by any application of WP:COMMON it would be the preferred term.

Futhermore, check the page stats, the redirect is getting the most hits due to the fact that people are searching for the Common Name and being referred to an article with the less common name.

I will close by noting that Paraguayan War is likely to be confused with several other conflicts, whilst War of the Triple Alliance will not. Again I will note, I feel you made a mistake by not commenting on all of the unhelpful comments that were made. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR and Google Books

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

Battle of Pabaiskas

It seems the move of title too rapid and unreasoned. I'd prefer to formulate "no consensus" and leave the original "Battle of Pabaiskas" name. Orionus (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not bad, 1 hour and 22 minutes before someone complained. I saw the move as warranted based on the discussion. That's what the WMF pays me the big bucks to do. RM decisions are not binding, and another RM can be opened at any time if you think you can reach a different consensus. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no consensus in the Battle of Pabaiskas discussion page for your action. It seems that there will be no consensus on the reverse move. Wilkomierz is polonized name of Ukmerge. Then you should rename it at least to Battle of Ukmerge. Yet it should be mentioned that during that battle (1435) there was no Polish-Lithuanian union (1791) established. Thus Lithuanians treat this move as polonization of Lithuanian history and place names... Orionus (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Recall

Are you one of the admins open to recall? Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I know not all admins are open to recall, I was wondering if you are one who is. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

On an unrelated(?) note, just making sure you are aware that this discussion is still ongoing...as you "closed" it earlier, you may be interested to follow it (although I cannot imagine why you would). I am sure you know all this alread, I'm just covering all basis...Good evening, and be well. --kelapstick 05:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Work your magic on this...

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

Mike...I am heading out soon so maybe just hold off since I won't be able to keep the bots at bay for about 5 hours.--MONGO 19:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really worried about the BOTs, at least they are civil. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh...well, will resume the issue in a few hours....I didn't know you already had it on standby in your userspace...even so, it was like magic.--MONGO 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Talkpage move

Hi Mike, I just noticed you moved SFR Yugoslav Air Force to Yugoslav Air Force, could I ask you to also please move the associated talkpage Talk:SFR Yugoslav Air Force? -- Director (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done sorry I missed that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Mike Cline (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves

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

		The Admin's Barnstar
		It's not easy to close the hard cases, when often there is no clear 'right' or 'wrong', so for your willingness to review them, thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Black Falcon 22:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Observation about Page view statistics

FC Zenit move closure

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

Hi, A concern about an edit without a RS source

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Campaignbox_Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict&diff=475976399&oldid=475885922 The editor admits there were more attacks on Hakkari in history, but he claims he uses numbers 1 and 2 for these attacks, since Misplaced Pages has only 2 articles on attacks on Hakkari. He writes "It's not about weather it was the first attack ever, it's about the fact that there are only two articles. If we make articles about other Hakkari battles/attacks/operations you can change the numbers."

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

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

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

re FC Zenit close

To be fair I took offence at remarks that I'm disruptive and causing drama . Editing in such an environment is no fun and I cound not afford it anymore. Barocci (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You did? I thought I was the disruptive one causing drama. :P Mentoz86 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record see: Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bibliographies of U.S. states and territories

Category:Bibliographies of U.S. states and territories, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Penn State scandal

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

Norse polytheism

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

Taiwan (disambiguation) move request

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

However the move is closed I highly doubt that it will cause any greater affect on any other articles to do with China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)