User talk:Mike Cline
- 1 WP:Today's featured article/January 23, 2015
- 2 Disambiguation link notification for January 9
- 3 MSU WVS
- 4 Reference Errors on 19 January
- 5 Rainbow trout
- 6 Pics
- 7 Dolan
- 8 Orphaned non-free image File:ScientificAnglersLogo.jpg
- 9 Visiting Scholar reflection
- 10 Photos from Twin Bridges area?
- 11 They ain't happy with inline links
- 12 DYK for Bleu Horses
- 13 Elkhorn, Montana
- 14 Message?
- 15 DYK nomination of Center for Biofilm Engineering
- 16 DYK for Center for Biofilm Engineering
- 17 blog post out!
- 18 A discussion at Ulysses S. Grant where your edit history could proved very helpful
- 19 Signature on relisting comment
- 20 Talk:Carbon (fiber)#Requested move 21 March 2015
- 21 Move review for Carbon (fiber)
- 22 Regarding a requested move for Greek Muslims
- 23 About deletions......
- 24 Humour
Hi Mike. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the text down to about 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? Also, one question: the lead says "native to cold-water tributaries of the Pacific Ocean in Asia and North America", but it also says "outside their native range in the U.S., Southern Europe, Australia and South America" ... so is Southern Europe part of their native range or not? - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elk Hair Caddis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grayling. 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.
I'm hearing great things from MSU about your work. They are really thrilled. I'm wondering if you have or could set up an onwiki subpage that lists and links to the articles you have created/improved under the WVS position. That would help us show off what is possible with these types of partnerships. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Doh. User:Mike_Cline/Wikipedia_visiting_scholar/contributions. :) Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 19 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Seconded...nice looking article and much more interesting than some of the more recent main page FAs.--MONGO 04:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- A wonderful article. I enjoyed reading it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- precious again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Some very nice photos on Bleu Horses Mike. Thank you. — 02:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- And the DYK nom is up, I think the bot will ping me if any problems, but I also have this page watchlisted. Check my added material to see if it's OK, and I did list myself as second creator, hope that was OK... Montanabw(talk) 05:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:ScientificAnglersLogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ScientificAnglersLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Visiting Scholar reflection
Hi Mike! I hope you are doing well. Would you be interested in writing something short (300-700 words) about your experience as a Visiting Scholar? We are trying to capture some reflections from each of the visiting scholars for both our communications of the positions and to create a short series of blog posts.
Questions that might help prompt your writing: What have you learned in collaborating with a Library on Wikipedia work? How does the access the library provides you strengthen your ability to contribute to Wikipedia? What made your experience distinctive? What did you contribute to Wikipedia during that time? Feel free to compose it on Wiki or email it to me. I would like to have as many of you all in our pilot group represented as possible! Thanks much, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Photos from Twin Bridges area?
Mike, in your jaunt to (I presume) go fishing on the Jefferson River, did you by any chance pass by the Doncaster Round Barn? I'd give my eyeteeth (well, almost) for a PD image of that building. My next project (I hope) is to improve Spokane (horse). I've posted a bunch of links on the talk page of stuff I've found. If you have any interest in collaborating there, you are most certainly welcome to do so. (You also get paybacks at me for the trout reviews... LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 23:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see that thing all the time. The next time I go by with my big camera I'll be sure and get some photos.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Heck, even a cell phone shot is better than nothing! (MacDonald Pass would have no images at all were it not for my "dumb phone"). Ping me when you can. Looks like the NRHP app was sent in last September, so they should be announcing the decision on listing it soon, another article to create. Montanabw(talk) 03:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
DYK wikignomes didn't like your inline link at Bleu Horses to Wheat Montana, so I linked it and started a wee stub: Wheat Montana. Feel free to dive in and help out, particularly if you have photos. Montanabw(talk) 03:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Bleu Horses
|On 14 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bleu Horses, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bleu Horses near Three Forks, Montana, are 8 feet (2.4 m) tall? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bleu Horses. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.|
I fixed it for you again. do you see how the
|coordinates_display= was there twice before my edit? Please tell me where the WP:MOS states that the article should be in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. We can always take this to WP:ANI if you need someone else to explain what you are doing wrong. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Mike, read that you have a message for me, but can´t find it.
- Wolfgang, please check your talk page: user talk:Wolfi2de. Thanks -- Mike Cline (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Center for Biofilm Engineering
Hello! Your submission of Center for Biofilm Engineering 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! Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Center for Biofilm Engineering
|On 13 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Center for Biofilm Engineering, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Center for Biofilm Engineering at Montana State University tackles biofilm issues including chronic wounds, bioremediation, and microbial corrosion? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Center for Biofilm Engineering. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.|
blog post out!
FYI, finally got the blog post out: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/17/wikipedia-research-library/ . We trimmed a few bits, but kept most of the feedback! Keep up the great work! Already getting some comments in from others in the WMF about the great work! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
A discussion at Ulysses S. Grant where your edit history could proved very helpful
There's a civil disagreement going on at Talk:Ulysses S. Grant surrounding Grant's role, if any, in the founding of Yellowstone Park. I asked MONGO and he suggested you as one of two editors who have extensive experience writing on Wikipedia about related pages. Would you be aware of sources which could help? Please consider commenting. Thanks BusterD (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Signature on relisting comment
Would you like to sign the relisting comment?  Or I can flag it as unsigned by you, but neater if you fix it.
Could you clarify your reasoning for this close? I count seven supports plus the nominator (myself) and three opposes. What gave the opponents' arguments so much weight? Srnec (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- SRNEC, I will respond with two thoughts.
- 1)I am always amazed when an editor asks for an explanation of a closed discussion and immediately cites the number of pro/con votes in the discussion, despite the reams of guidance we have about discussions not being decided on votes.
- 2)I read, re-read and re-read this discussion many times and became convinced there was no real consensus to make the move exactly as requested. Thus I explicitly suggested in the close that another RM take place with a bit more precise alternative for this complex topic. It always clouds consensus when editors in the discussion propose alternative titles, solutions to the one requested. In this case I counted at least three alternative solutions. I think my close was clear enough to allow further resolution of this in a new RM to deal with some of the alternatives especially the issue of PRIMARY TOPIC which would drive different solutions.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Strength of argument. Not number of votes or number of alternative titles proposed. How can alternative proposals cloud the consensus if it's based on strength of argument? That's why I asked what gave their arguments so much weight. How can you say that explicitly support votes weren't for the proposal exactly as requested? What else were they supporting? I tried to address the issue of primary topic by citing sources, both academic and popular, showing how the question "What is carbon fiber?" was answered. Another user cited the OED. A user opposed to the move cited incoming links, which (on cursory inspection at least) shows the opposite of what he thought it did. An anonymous user made several arguments of the form WP:NWFCTM. How would a further move request (third in under a year) help resolve the issue of primary topic? Or did you mean a discussion of a merger? Srnec (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Move review for Carbon (fiber)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Carbon (fiber). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Srnec (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding a requested move for Greek Muslims
I have been checking the page Greek Muslims and you have closed a discussion which has not had the extended time for it to be properly debated. You state that the issue is "content based". The people who have already answered there are 4 support and 3 oppose to changing the title of the article. As such, the discussion should be allowed to proceed. If anything the impetus was towards change. I was going to change it as it was 4 to 3, but wanted more debate. As an administrator i am not sure if you took those issues into account. The debate should be ongoing as the title page is in dispute and defiantly not resolved. The title page does not reflect the views of people from that community and instead reflects a view that may be viewed as one propagating Greek nationalism. Wikipedia i feel is beyond that.
- Thanks for the advice Mike. I have done so. Its been placed on the move review page. ==Move review for Greek Muslims==
An editor has asked for a Move review of Greek Muslims. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Resnjari (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- One user who wrote on my talk page advised me to "correct my comments". So i deleted them. Yes i know they are of the history page, the same say way that i was accused of POV in my edits, which the editor in question now says only had some wording issues and "that most were ok" making the deletion very questionable, to say the least. I admit i overacted. But a very big deletion was done with no discussion or consultation on any talk page (very ad hoc). That is concerning, because someone who has the privileges of editing or reverting does that without proper scrutiny or oversight because it may not suit them at first. It is all on the Cham Albanians page. Now the editor in question is engaging in a discussion after(not before) i did what i did. Makes one wonder. Who would i go to though if ones feels that an editor has overstepped their mark next time, without it being called "canvassing" or so on ?
- Regards Resnjari (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Did you get my email? No need to discuss here yet, just confirming. The Cham Albanians issues are complex (at least from my limited perspective) so I am taking sometime to study up before I address your question. In the meantime read WP:BRD as this will provide some insight to your concerns. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed my point. I'll try one more time.
Back at Yoghurt we had the same situation. RM after RM resulted in 50/50 (more or less), and many argued there is no consensus and everyone should move on and work on the encyclopedia, just as you did here. But since the original title of the article was Yogurt, and it had been moved to Yoghurt under dubious pretenses, the policy-based reason (RETAIN) to restore the original title remained. Some of us argued there was no flip-side: if the article was moved back to Yogurt, then there would be no policy-based reason to move it again. That would be a decision truly supported by community consensus. But for years that argument was ignored. Only after an absurd amount of time and effort was devoted to explaining the history and situation was the article finally moved. And guess what? No (serious) challenges yet, and it has been over three years now. Why? Because, as predicted, once that tile was moved back to Yogurt, there would be no policy based reason to move it again.
We have the exact same situation at Humour. The policy based reason to move will remain as long as that article remains at Humour. Only when it is moved back to its original title at Humor will that title have community consensus, because there will be no policy based reason to move it from Humor.