User talk:Mlm42

This is Mlm42's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 31 days

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

WP:AIRPORTS Style guide template

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bristol Airport#Destinations - lists vs tables. -- Trevj (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines)

Hi. Prompted by your proposal, I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines) to avoid concerns over WP:POVFORK. I know you were proposing the merge to WikiProject Airlines but WikiProject Airports seemed more appropriate. There was no rationale given and apparently no other opinions expressed. -- Trevj (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ROC Talk page

I'm always amazed at the number of other editors whose advice to me when nice conversation isn't working, and I try something different, is to go back to being nice. What the hell will that achieve?

My goal in trying different approaches when one doesn't work is to actually move the conversation forward, and to try to get the recalcitrant editors to actually think about the impact of their behaviour. So far, being nice hasn't had any impact at all for me. With luck, a firmer approach might make someone else think a little bit more. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily about being "nice", but rather, being "civil". I guess it's possible to take a firmer approach without shouting or name calling. But in any case, it seems very difficult to get other editors to, broadly speaking, change their behaviour. A much more attainable goal, is to change their minds on content with reasonable arguments; and if that's impossible, then make arguments so strong that they appear unreasonable if they aren't convinced by them. Some editors have a knack for steering conversation away from the main points, if the main points aren't working out in their favour; the best response is to remain patient, and steer them back. The end goal is not to convince every single person to change their minds; it's to convince reasonable on-lookers that your side has stronger arguments. Mlm42 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses

Re [1] - I compared 175.159.193.30's contributions with mine. He or she actually voted on something else too (the CfDs nominated on 10 February). Given the number votes identical to mine (four out of six), would that be just a coincidence? Or is someone pretending that I'm abusing multiple accounts? Is there anything that I can do about it? It's getting silly. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I understand your question, but I see essentially two possibilities: (1) It's a coincidence (different people sometimes care about the same topics..) and (2) You are using different IP addresses, and intentionally deceiving us about it. I find it very unlikely somebody is trying to set you up (as you appear to suggest). Schmucky has clearly latched on to you (since you have been so active) and decided you are not to be trusted, and so is assuming (2). For me, honestly, it's hard to tell which it is; you seem like a somewhat Wikipedia-savvy editor, and as such it's possible you know how to fool people.

On the other hand, I like to assume people have the best intentions, so I would generally work on the assumption that (1) is correct. One thing you could do to further advance your case, if you want to demonstrate you are not trying to deceive people: Disclose the previous IP addresses you have edited under. I think I asked you to do that some time ago, and you never did. Of course you're not obligated to do so; but you can see how if you don't, it will look like you have something to hide. Mlm42 (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you posted a list on my wall. I read the contribution history of each of them and I didn't think I had used any of them. The problem is that I don't keep track of my own IP addresses. I can only tell from edit history. As for 175.159.193.30, I think it's co-incidence too. But given the fact that SchmuckyTheCat went around promptly to tag all of them, it appears a bit suspicious. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow you; are you suggesting that Schmucky is using that IP address to "frame" you? Again, this seems extremely unlikely. He was able to tag all of them so quickly, because he simply followed the contribution history of that IP address (just like you did).

And it shouldn't be that hard for you to list a few of your past IP addressed. Just think of particular pages you edited, look at that page's edit history, and find your edit. Mlm42 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now look what you made me do!

New note on my talk page

Note that I'm only pointing this out to you, not to "Penyulap", who incidentally strikes me as a real kook.

Here's the thing that I've come to realize: it's a tremendous waste of time to worry about what people say on talk pages, or in the Wikipedia namespace. What's worse is that it's actually detrimental to the Encyclopedia itself. The result, of course, is that I largely don't edit any longer, but... there's really nothing wrong with that. If more people would stop being so concerned about the inane things being "discussed" on talk pages then... well, there would be a ton less editing. However, consider the real impact that such involvement on Wikipedia actually has. Take a look at various archives, and see how often the same subjects are argued over time and time again, and how it's the same people bickering back and forth over varying subjects at different points in time.

Once you (and others, not really "you" specifically) quit trying to impose your will on some tiny corner of Wikipedia, then things will naturally straighten themselves out (it's easiest to see this happening with old "current events" articles, which often end up being fantastic pieces of writing after the typical brouhaha surrounding them dies down). Until then, if you don't like having to man the gates against the barbarians who don't share your own opinion on something then... well, that's just too bad. You've made your bed, now you get to sleep in it. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; I agree with pretty much everything you just said. I didn't mean to upset you by leaving a message on your talk page.. I guess I felt like I should say something regarding your message apparently directed at me. For the record, I really haven't been following the ISS talk page lately.. just noticed that massive pointless discussion, and was saddened by the amount of editor time being wasted (as you have pointed out).. which is why I said what I said.

But you're right, it's been a while since I've done any real editing.. I'd like to think I'm helping others reach consensus in the one or two discussions I am currently engaged in (and hence reduce the amount of wasted editor time), but maybe everybody thinks that. Mlm42 (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that most of the people engaged in discussions on talk pages or in the Wikipedia namespace have the same outlook as yourself, that "I'm helping others reach consensus". I felt essentially the same way, back about a year ago (or whenever it was that I last spent any significant time here). I just suddenly kind of realized, 'you know what? There's nothing really being accomplished here...' Once I realized that I kind of did a little thought experiment with myself, thinking 'OK, if I just let his all go, what really happens?' So, some person comes along and edits the article (OMG!), and now there's a bunch of stuff that either a) reads like crap, or b) that I don't agree with (or both). I simply realized that either or both eventualities truly are no big deal.

Take this engvar thing, for example. I come and read the article and am like "wtf is with this british style english?", so I go and change it. Colds, or yourself, or whoever, reverts while screaming about engvar... 10 years later and 10,000 editors later... is either of those edits going to make any significant impact? I doubt it. Something will happen eventually (probably while and after the ISS de-orbits) and basically the entire article will be rewritten anyway, and likely by completely different people. So... whatever. I have real things to worry about, you know?

In the meantime, I kinda rewrote the AdBrite article just a couple of days ago (restructured it, to be more accurate). It only took like 10 minutes, but it made me feel like a real contributor again even if only for a second. If that's the only edit I make in the next month (or two!) then I'll be happy, and I think that I've been much more productive than (I'd guess) 90% of the "editors" with the highest edit counts over the same period of time. Overall, I'm not upset at anything or anybody here (including yourself) any longer. I'm simply trying to avoid being pulled back into the mire and muck that is the talk page/Wikipedia namespace here, you know? I get upset once I start actually reading some of that, but then I go back to doing real things and it's all better again. :)

Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan move discussion and IP editors

I think we should just ignore all IP editors from Hong Kong (as we have at Talk:China and other places). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Animals in space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fruit fly (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) 10:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ROC --> Taiwan

I figured since you were the one who originally posted the move, you might have a better idea of when the RM is closing, because generally RMs close in 7 days but there have been many complaints, especially by the opposition, about that being too short because many might be unaware about the move and so forth, so, I know you're not in charge of the RM or such but I was curious and didn't want to post it on Talk:ROC because I can just see the outcry now, would it stay 7, which means it would end tomorrow, the 24th, or would we be more likely to extend it to as long as some had suggested, 60 days? Thanks. JPECH95 00:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this one will stay open for a while. After 7 days has passed, if some passing admin believes that a consensus has been reached, then he/she can close the discussion (I'd say this is fairly unlikely). Otherwise, it will probably get re-listed. Basically, we just have to be patient until an admin who's brave enough comes forward and sorts it all out. If too much time passes and it still hasn't been closed, then we could always seek out help at the relevant notice boards. Mlm42 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Because I can understand why it wouldn't be 7 days, that's enough time, even for supporters, if they didn't know about it. I just don't want this to be open forever and go on as it is, in a sence, starting to now (in my opinion). JPECH95 02:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Barnstar

The Republic of China Barnstar of National Merit

Mlm42, until the end of January, I never really have heard of you, but since then you've been a very helpful user (although occasionally I don't always feel that way, especially when we disagree on major stuff which is probably pointless to begin with) on the Taiwan Proposal that we've come up with, and now can see the RM and soon enough, hopefully, into a reality. And you especially didn't stop once the RM was posted, you've been a major voice in the discussions there as well. Thank you very much, Mlm42.

JPECH95 23:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mlm42. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse.
Message added 17:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tea Leaf - Issue One - Recent news from the Teahouse

Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

Metrics are out from week one. Week one showed that the need for Teahouse hosts to invite new editors to the Teahouse is urgent for this pilot period. It also showed that emailing new users invitations is a powerful tool, with new editors responding more to emails than to talk page templates. We also learned that the customized database reports created for the Teahouse have the highest return rate of participation by invitees. Check out the metrics here and see how you can help with inviting in our Invitation Guide.
A refreshed "Your hosts" page encourages experienced Wikipedians to learn about the Teahouse and participate. With community input, the Teahouse has updated the Your hosts page which details the host roles within the Teahouse pilot and the importance that hosts play in providing a friendly, special experience not always found on other welcome/help spaces on Wikipedia. It also explains how Teahouse hosts are important regarding metrics reporting during this pilot. Are you an experienced editor who wants to help out? Take a look at the new page today and start learning about the hosts tasks and how you can participate!
Introduce yourself and meet new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. New & experienced editors to Wikipedia can add a brief infobox about themselves and get to know one another with direct links to userpages. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, they'll surely be happy to feel the wikilove!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dynkin

I have edited the page Eugene Dynkin a bit, before realising that you may be in the middle of a revision. So a) I am sorry for disruption, b) please check that I have not done much damage (my edits were mainly cosmetic). Sasha (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I'm not in the middle of a revision, and your improvements all look good to me! :-) Mlm42 (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me about the edit. If I added this sentence, I must have had a reason - this was probably written in some article I was reading at the time. It's been awhile and I don't remember the source. On the other hand, a reference "Dynkin told me personally" is not a good reason either. Somebody (you?) might want to investigate this a bit. Mhym (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to the Freidlin article; the other anniversary articles do not mention the reason. "Dynkin told me personally" is not a good ref., but an unref-ed statement (esp. in a BLP article) is even worse :( Sasha (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:ROC

"Very heated discussion that wasn't going anywhere (and led to an IP block)"[2] I'm afraid that's a bit misleading and oversimplifying. It isn't the heated discussion that led to the block. It was because of HiLo48's mislocated comments. And it was HiLo48's intention to start a new section to complain.[3][4] Please don't refactor his comments. He complains vigorously. :) 202.189.98.134 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, you are the same person as 202.189.98.131 (talk · contribs), who is currently blocked (so you are evading the block). I collapsed the discussion because it was pointless. Mlm42 (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I have reduced the collapsed area so that the noteworthy part will be displayed. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ROC canvassing

Hi Mlm42, just letting you know I've been investigating the canvassing issue for the past 2 hours. I posted some details in reply at Talk:Republic of China. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse

Hi Mlm42! Glad to see you lending a hand. As requested on the "Your hosts" page, it'd be wonderful to have people who are answering questions (hosts) participate in all areas that the hosts are asked to participate in per that host page. Two things I'd LOVE help with specifically: inviting people and when you are finished answering a question on the Teahouse page, it'd be awesome if you'd leave a Teahouse Talkback on the editors page. These are all necessities during (and honestly, beyond) the pilot phase of this project, and is very important in us tracking metrics to judge the projects successes, or failures. If this is going to be an issue, feel free to let me know! Thanks again for participating, you're doing an awesome job :) Sarah (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I totally meant to leave that talkback template, but completely forgot. My bad - thanks for the reminder. :-) And sure, I'll try inviting some people as well. 24.84.9.97 (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]