User talk:Mark Miller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2014)[edit]

Aqueduct of Segovia 08.jpg

Arches were used in Ancient Roman architecture to build aqueducts, such as the Aqueduct of Segovia

Hello, Mark Miller.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Ancient Roman architecture

Previous selections: Ancient Roman architecture • Consumer electronics

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thanks for your help with several different discussions in the last week. I just want to let you know that I appreciate your input and dispute resolution expertise. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Been out of state without internet access.[edit]

I just got back from Las Vegas. I'll have photos uploaded to Commons by this evening. Holy crap the flights were rough. Touchdown in Vegas was....interesting. LOL! But Turbulence on the way home...holy something out of a movie. Even my partner who is used to flying a lot said it was unusual but the weather out west has been extreme these past few days from hotter than usual in Vegas for this time of year (about 99 to 100 degrees) to our first rain of the season in Sacramento coming home!--Mark Miller (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

View of Las Vegas Boulevard from the Eiffel Tower at the Paris Hotel. This is a $15 view. ;-)

Welcome back[edit]

Hey, Mark, welcome back from vacation. I hope you and your partner had a good time. I was in San Francisco around the same time you were in Vegas and had a blast. I only visit during the warmest part of the year. :) Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a quick note about Eric Corbett ‎and Lithistman. Eric has a long history of collaborating with editors, so I'm not sure why you got the wrong impression. Maybe it's because he's modest about it and doesn't brag, I don't know, but I've seen him work with and help a lot of people. As for Lithistman, he's really a cool guy; give him a chance, please. Thanks, Mark. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of editors are defending Eric on that point so I assume good faith and believe them. I just had a very bad experience once by directing a new editor to him that went south fast. And my last discussion with him on WER was another one of his demonstrations of undermining the discussion where I made the mistake of referring to him as Mr. Corbett. He can call some names, but can't handle Mr. Corbett. I find that a bit strange. Of course, both Eric and Lithistman are good editors that everyone should give a chance. But I do think Lithistman went a bit too far by pinging editors to the Barrownman article. But that is not to say it was inappropriate canvassing, just seemed very much like an attack and a continuation of a fight. Look...I am really pissed off with the way the John Barrowman article was treated and the way admin wheel war...but my being an asshole is certainly not going to improve things.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Mark. One of your best qualities is your ability to consider viewpoints other than your own, and to change your mind when presented with new evidence. Stay gold! Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This is something I have thought about a lot. I don't really agree that editors should be put on a different level because they are prolific. That alone does mean their huge amount of contributions are accurate or free from original research or synthesis. I know of at least one editor that was discussed on a talk page as being the most active editor on a particular subject and having a lot of contributions so we were being asked to give them more leeway...but on a deeper look, many of their articles (and I mean many) are just crap with little or no inline citations and on the talk page are promises to clean up their work that date back two years or more with no movement. The number of people off Wikipedia that have complained to me about this editor and their articles, their contributions and some of the ways they went about collecting information might actually shock you Viriditas. Yes...they are prolific contributors, but the vast majority of their contributions seem to have a severe bias that has offended many readers and editors alike. They as well have made accusations that can be seen as a true pattern of disruption. Leaving Eric out of this completely....I think it is time we began looking closer at the contributions of those that have a long and detailed history of running editors off articles out of spite or the illusion that they know better than others. I don't believe we should change our policy of not punishing but discouraging editors from this pattern of behavior. Someone who does not have a real pattern need not worry....but those that do...should. Why should the project rely on a handful of prolific editors no matter how good they are? The findings and research or there. New editors leave because they feel that they cannot contribute to articles of interest out of either ownership issues or disruptive behavior by older, more experienced editors that actively discourage editors they don't like or don't agree with, feel or less knowledgeable. Why should that be? Why can't there be some better way to treat new and less experienced editors to retain them and help guide them to be better contributors...all the time and not just when the mood strikes these editors.
My biggest fear is this - if these prolific editors are discouraged from participating in discussions or articles where they have clearly crossed a line and are topic banned or blocked...even by Arb Com....what is to stop an administrator from just saying "screw this" and wheel warring until they, too are blocked...setting off a chain reaction of wheel warring and administrative blocks and unblocks as a consequence of the original decision. I am not worried about the protest retirements. Even if a third of the admin corpse was to up and retire...I doubt it would last. I have watched as at least one admin came back from retirement...asked for the tools back just so they could wheel war...and were actually given that opportunity. No....I could care less if editors decide to retire in mass. There will be others to take their place. The bad part of that would be the suspension of a number of features on Wikipedia with the loss of so many with tools...but we could rebuild from such a loss. The wheel war that resulted from such actions however... would be very disruptive. Why? Because admin is uncontrollable. Not out of control (well...some are but that's a different issue) but simply put....there exists no true mechanism on Wikipedia for admin to be controlled from doing stupid things on purpose. We cannot rely on the admin corpse to take action against another admin. It doesn't seem to work and when and if it does, it is generally a slap on the hand followed by a slap on the back with "don't worry about it" (that is a broad brush stroke...I know but still..).
Wikipedia needs a new system where perhaps someone above admin can hand out temp or indef tool blocks that show up on their own block log. Yes...seriously. If an admin does something that is against our policy, guidelines and/or admin rules etc., there should be a mechanism to take those tools away, allowing for the standard offer to apply. Another thing we really could use is an anonymous way for editors to lodge formal behavioral complaints about administrators so people no longer have to go threw the public humiliation and gauntlet that has to be run threw to be taken seriously. Jimbo mentioned something about where the Foundation could spend money and if having paid monitors would be effective. Maybe what is needed is for the foundation to pay a full time staff of a minimal amount to oversee such an anonymous form of complaints about admin actions that cross a line, and have these monitors "block" the tools when they see fit and/or the admin from editing. I really want admin to have the same marks on them that others do....but with that set of tools comes bigger responsibility and therefore having such a way to show...permanently that they had the tools blocked on said date and returned on said date on their block log would be a way to encourage better behavior from that level of editor. Just a few thoughts.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Auh.. TL;DR. >.< Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hit rollback by accident, Las Vegas[edit]

The article at Las Vegas has a long history. Consensus seems to run that it is ambiguous, which it clearly is. Consensus is also that a disambiguation page is not the best choice in this case, even if there is no clear primary topic. Consensus at the last discussion, at least the way I was it, was that the city article is not the primary use unless you include Paradise, Nevada and Paradise, Nevada. Since that deflates the basic intent of having an article on the city, those could not be combined. Hence the city article would up there despite all of the issues with it being in the main name space. My personal opinion is that if the Valley article was here, 100% of the inbound links would be correct. With the city article, that number is about 10% before you clean them up. I have seen articles for thing in Henderson and NLV linking to LV which is incorrect but would be OK for the valley. Part of the logic on the move is that most people only think of the city. My position that most of what people think of as Las Vegas, including the media, is not in the city. Feel free to research and form your opinions. Do note that most/ all buildings and companies are categorized and have in the text their correct city/town. Oh, one last point, a mailing address is not the same as a location. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

To clarify the current article is only about the city. Hence the problem. I think this should be clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Not aware of a good image being available. But if you need one, maybe
File:Brain Institute Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.JPG


File:U.S. Post Office and Courthouse, Las Vegas.jpg

Like I said, I'm not aware of a good choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I would have suggested an image of the new city hall, but I did not see one. It seems that everyone likes to take pictures of the strip which is not in the city (BTW, neither is the airport) so we see little of the city. If you look at an article like Las Vegas Strip we have good images that show what readers take when they are in the area. One of these days, I'll try and get more images that can be released for use here. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
As to content, it should be limited to the city. As needed, a brief mention of other stuff may be appropriate. The airport is covered in several articles, and probably in more detail. It only needs a mention in the city article since it is the commercial airport for the area. What ever is mention in the city article probably should be in the articles for all of the places in the area since the statement would be just as accurate there. I suppose most of the transportation stuff could be put in a template and used on every article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. BTW, the casino articles, and most other places, do have the correct location in the articles if you want to check. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014[edit]

This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2014)[edit]

IAH Aerial.jpg

Aerial photograph of George Bush Intercontinental Airport, an international airport in Houston, United States

Hello, Mark Miller.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

International airport

Previous selections: Ancient Roman architecture • Ancient Roman architecture

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Hey! Whatdoyaknow! LOL! I love it.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


I just saw this from May. It looks like it's an incarnation of a formerly blocked user we used to have a problem with. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Man...I'm getting old. I barely remember this.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter[edit]

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Scotland Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)