User talk:Mildly Mad

Talk to me here. Davidt2718 04:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I just lost the game. Sly Si 05:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I lose the game all the time. I should announce it to you sometime; I think a lot of my other friends might be less appreciative of my making them lose over Facebook again. Sly Si 02:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Meetup

Sunday, 2007-10-07, 1:00 p.m. (13:00)
Pracna on Main
117 Main SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Map

Please pass this on! RSVP here.

Spam delivered by Jonathunder 16:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mndaily logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Mndaily logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures-Team Copyright

Hello, any news on posting pictures taken by team members? Or if copyright owned by team if its on the website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcgilpi (talk • contribs) 21:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At what point do you go to the noticeboards?

Since you seem to do a lot of 3Os, I would like a bit of advice if you don't mind...when it is clear that one user in particular is causing most of the problems, at what point do you report it to one of the noticeboards? (I'm referring in particular to YMB29 on Human rights in the Soviet Union‎). I don't necessarily think he's wrong about the content, but his approach is awful, and I don't want to make it worse by getting an admin involved prematurely. Thanks! MirrorLockup (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DRR. It's a little hazy, but WP:AN is kind of a "last resort" from the previous steps (WP:RFC and WP:3O) - you need to show that the previous attempts to solve the problem have failed (as the pretty clearly have at Human rights in the Soviet Union‎). In fact, as I mentioned on the talk page, both of the users involved in that conflict took it to the Admin Noticeboard and both got banned for edit warring just before we gave our third opinions. In this particular case, a WP:RFC is probably needed, and if that fails, then possibly go to arbitration. Note that arbitration is pretty serious and is only a last resort where all other options fail. Mildly Mad^Contribs 15:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, RFC...I hadn't thought about that. Eventually, I'll figure out which hoops must be jumped through :) I don't think this rises to the level of arbitration...the community can tackle this with a little more civility (or with more eyes from people who know about Soviet history). An RFC might do the trick though...I'll see how the 3O unfolds. Much appreciated. MirrorLockup (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Meetup

2009

Details under discussion.

Please share this with anyone who may be interested.

Jonathunder (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the meetup will be at 1 p.m. Sunday, October 11, in St. Paul. Click here for more details and to R.S.V.P. Jonathunder (talk)

Women's hockey season

Thank you for your help with the Minnesota Golden Gophers women's hockey page. Maple Leaf (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Jones, P.I.

Thank you for your 3rd opinion for Toronto Jones, P.I.. I nominated it for deletion, but the author just admitted it was a fake. See: Talk:Toronto_Jones,_P.I.#Third_Opinion. Do you know if I can nominate this for speedy deletion while it's listed on WP:Afd? Thanks, Pdcook (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Re:Third opinion

Hi! Thank you for the post. Doesn't the section name "Sea of Japan (East Sea) naming dispute" conflict with the condition "per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mention."? That's the point I wanted to know from the beginning. The Sea of Japan (East Sea) was already used in the second line of the first sentence here. So I thought using it as a section name would be the second use of the description. That was why I used the main article name as the section name. Should I have posted this on the talk page? But I'm not sure if it's on your watch list. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should go on the talk page for the article. I have duplicated the above post there and will respond to it. Mildly Mad^T_C 14:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3O at Słupsk Voivodeship

Thank you for responding to my 3O request at Słupsk Voivodeship. However, you emphasized that "In my experience, the best use of Navboxes is generally if the article itself is mentioned in the Navbox". Słupsk Voivodeship actually was and is included in the navbox, as are all other historical Pomeranian voivodeships. Also, are you aware that Pomerania and Poland are not mutually exclusive? One is a region, the other one is the country. Please tell me what you think. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the 3O Award

I really wasn't fishing for it <blush>, but thank you very, very much. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direction SD article

Hello Mildly Mad,

I commented on your post in the Talk:Direction_–_Social_Democracy talk page of the Direction article.

Regards Slobo486 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ID assertion

Thanks for looking back for previous discussions on ID being an assertion – I did have a look myself, but by the time I returned to the talk page you'd archived the talk section so I didn't want to restart the conversation. Much appreciated, dave souza, talk 16:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a rebuttle.

check belovedfreak's talk page.

Mrgoogfan (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeus IT Group

Hi,

I do not think it is very reasonable for me to continue filling up the talk page of the article, so I'd like to continue the discussion with you here if you do not mind (as I was the one requiring the Third Opinion, I guess you cannot doubt my point was sincere). You seem to be very careful to adhere to the word of Wikipedia principles, so I am interested to have your view. I am not trying to hide anything, my real name is known from Wikipedia (on purpose), and I am not trying to edit from an anonymous IP address, so my honesty should plead for me. I've had a more careful look at WP:COI, and I read the following, as possibilities of edit in case of WP:COI:

Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page.

Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them.

If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page.

So, in essence, I am not prohibited to edit if it's been discussed in the talk page, right? Would you be so kind to have a look at my most recent edits and let me know if you see anything wrong there? Everything has been done reasonably in line with the discussion I believe.

Now, talking about the older edit war, I do not think I violated any Wikipedia principle, as I started a discussion on the talk page before editing. I opened the Third Opinion case because the other editor involved in the edit war refused to engage in any discussion on the talk page I am supposed to use to be allowed to edit. Additionally, you give an opinion on the suspicion of bias due to WP:COI on my side. Refusing to enter a discussion seems to me a bias too. Incidentally, the other editor wrote the first article on Galileo (and it was also his first article on Wikipedia), a competitor of Amadeus, so it is likely he is in some kind of WP:COI himself, so I believe you should not offer an opinion based only on suspicions of WP:COI on one of the parties. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add a quote from WP:COI: "Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair." I doubt the intent of these words is to allow editors to refuse discussion during weeks and revert changes as soon as they are made? Vincent Lextrait (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I probably put up the WP:COI flag without enough research; your massive strings of recent edits led me to assume that you were the primary contributor to the article, and I now see that my initial assumption was incorrect. A more detailed look in to the history reveals that the article has in fact drastically improved over the last 200 edits or so. In fact, a re-write of the lede (to something like this suggestion) and removing the "Products" section would probably make the article good enough to remove the {{ad}} tag.

However, it's edits like these that sound like WP:OWN to me. I'm not sure why you think that editors are refusing to discuss the article with you; there's at least 5 occasions on the talk page where editors have attempted to justify (and rectify) the addition of the advertisement tag, but you simply disagreed with them and reverted their edits. The locus of the dispute seems to be with the lists of products and numbers about the company. Remember that Wikipedia is not a listing of statistics. In order to sound less like an advertisement, the article needs to do less telling and more describing. To use your example, the SAP AG article describes the specific objective of the company ("enterprise software applications"), and further down describes to the reader exactly what the company does by offering wikilinks and short descriptions of its applications (Enterprise resource planning, etc.) Mildly Mad^T_C 17:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied this to Talk:Amadeus IT Group as the comments are relevant there as well Mildly Mad^T_C 17:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no apologies needed, I am clearly, as you rightly pointed out, in a situation of conflict of interest, and I have no plan to hide it in any way. I have no plan either to violate in any way Wikipedia principles, either worded or in spirit. I am member of ISO committees, and I am quite accustomed to working respectfully with others, and also witnessing people trying their best to work in an unavoidable COI situation. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for quite a while (years), and I try to contribute modestly. I do not spend a lot of time on the Amadeus article (only once a year or so), but as the talk pages indicates it rightly at the beginning, the article is a shame, and there are almost no contributors willing to improve it (except slashing its content which is not very constructive). So, shame motivated me. The reason why I see that people were unwilling to discuss is that I have tried to improve the article, and once I believed (sincerely, but wrongly - I have a bias) that the article was acceptable, I opened a discussion in the talk page (as WP:COI suggests). You can see that these discussions received no feedback whatsoever during weeks (up to one month) - notice the timestamps. And between the events you refer too, the article changed (not sufficiently probably). So I removed (wrongly) the ad tag, and was reverted immediately (again look at time stamps) always by the same editor with a probable COI too (well, suspicions are quite unpleasant), unwilling to contribute and to explain his position in the talk page (see that he says that it leads him to nausea...).

The SAP AG article contains exactly the same figures, only they were not at the same place (at the time of writing, they are at the same place now). So I guess the article needs further work indeed, but not necessarily removing the figures, which have their exact match in the SAP AG article, almost word for word. Do you see any problem if I fix all this if I carefully stay within WP:COI guidelines? Vincent Lextrait (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments / contributions before I post the ANI?

I've been working on this ANI posting to try and put an end to the round and round discussion of "Creation Myth" and it's usage. I plan on posting it later today. If you have anything to add or any comments please feel free to add them at the above link. Nefariousski (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Hi.

Thank you for making this comment:

"Although these concepts are not necessarily entirely scientific or encyclopaedic in nature, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, not encyclopaedic-ness. Remember, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, so we can include any topic that is adequately covered by reliable sources, including ID concepts such as specified complexity. Having the sub-articles also serves the interest of keeping the ID article to a reasonable length. Thanks for your comment! Mildly MadTC 14:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design COMDER (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've missed you

You've not been around 3O and you're missed. I hope that you're just taking a break and that all is well with you and yours. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have you back. We've missed you! Not to pry, but are you okay? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

Mad, I appreciated this edit], which changed "modern" to "contemporary". Though a minor tweak, it makes some good sense to me personally. But heck, next thing you know, there might well be a "post-contemporary" movement in home interior design, followed by a "post-contemporary Feng Shue movement, which might then in turn lead to changing it back to "modern" or "today" or "now, quickly, before the next round of linguistic revision of what we mean by 'today'!". LOL, but a very reasonable edit IMO. :) ... Kenosis (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, thanks for this formatting correction. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re from ResidentAnthropologist Talk page

Reviewing the sources there seemed to be less to Reddit part seemed WP:UNDUE at "Keep fear Alive." While it was mentioned in at "Restoring Sanity" and intently focused in on the other thus I chopped it down a bit. If you feel it should be put back in go for it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to evolution

Dear Mildly Mad, I hope you are doing well. I am fine with your latest revision to the Objections to evolution article. However, I readded the exception to the article and hope you will be okay with this as well. Thanks for your effort. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like, while not completely necessary, it should be acceptable. I removed the other two sentences because they didn't seem to contribute much to the article about evolution. Thanks, Mildly Mad^T_C 21:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyTalkResponse

Hi Mildly Mad,

Thank you for the advice you gave me - as you noticed I am new to Wikipedia and am just learning about everything, so I appreciate it. I will read up on the policies and am considering joining the WikiProject Minnesota. Also, I am associated with the Minnesota Historical Society.

Archivist100 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear crowd size

Please see User_talk:Spencer4Hire. Thanks! —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3O Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Lybia_and_POV

Thank you very much for offering a third opinion.

If you need any input from me, don't hesitate to contact me.

Best, Chzz ► 16:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed a small typo in the reply you gave; you might wish to fix it; The blurb should clearly state that the the attacks... much as I enjoy the music of The The Chzz ► 16:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion Award

		The Third Opinion Award
		For diligent and faithful service to the Wikipedia community through your work at WP:3O. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ

Dear MM, Thanks for the small correction. I never new there was a major difference. I just saw what the article stated. Also, I went to that link you provided and it was very interesting. Again thanks. Jack 20:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Third Opinion

I wasn't really looking for an outside third opinion. Just input from some of the other editors who watch ID. I guess I shouldn't have used the template. La vie. i kan reed (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need help, and am quite desperate, I didn't know who else to turn to

Hello, I proposed LU subject on the english page. I won't make contributions to english wikipedia anymore however, because I noticed the 'evolution theory' article that is written in dutch is giving equal weight to pseudoscience. Could you please help me combat this, by giving me a complete list of wikipedia policies that combat this? And IF people edit war me after I did this, could you tell me what would be my next step? I explained why I deleted the pseudoscientific, unsupported text, and it got reversed immediately. It is an obvious creationist hijacking. I found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Pseudoscience_and_related_fringe_theories, but I usually see people post "WP:FRINGE" or "WP:NPOV". I hope you can help me (newby) affirm wikipolicies in dutch wikipedia. I turned to you because you were helpfull before. I would not at all mind if you delete this from your talk page, and continue in mine. Thank you. Helemaalnicks (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thank you for barnstar for the NASA article. I tried to do the same for some related articles but got mixed receptions. Maybe I got carried away. Soerfm (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Mildly Mad. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Twin Cities Transit Articles

Hi. Thanks for the comment about the transit articles. I've mostly been motivated to start using the new names because I've been seeing Green Line signage popping up at Central Corridor stations for several months now. I've been perplexed about the correct path to take with all of these articles for a while, and I had expected to wait to rename things until the Red Line began operations (which had been expected to start by now, but has been delayed several months), but the new names have actually been getting to be hard to ignore for me (though I do spend a lot of time at urbanmsp.com, where we've been using the colors for line names for months as well). In some cases, I think we should actually have distinct articles for the LRT or BRT transitway infrastructure versus the services that run on top of them -- for instance, the "Central Corridor" (for lack of a better name) is a 9-mile piece of rail infrastructure running from near the Metrodome to Saint Paul Union Depot, but the Green Line will be a service running 11 miles on the Hiawatha Line and the Central Corridor line from Target Field to SPUD, and which will eventually run 20+ miles on SWLRT, Hiawatha, and CCLRT infrastructure. Similarly, I'm not quite sure how the Red or Orange lines will work yet -- it might make sense to have separate infrastructure articles for those, particularly if the Red Line buses end up continuing all the way to downtown Minneapolis.

Anyway, I don't plan to rename the main Hiawatha article yet or expend effort changing the individual station articles until the Blue Line name becomes official enough that signage is changed at stations and/or the voice announcements on the train start using the new name. I expect that to come with the opening of the Red Line, but I haven't heard anything official yet. —Mulad (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having separate articles for the infrastructure and services sounds like a good path forward--looking at New York City Subway and Chicago 'L', this seems to be the common practice (see List of New York City Subway lines, for example). This could also open up some options for articles about bus routes (if they meet WP:N of course... IIRC, the history of the 3 route is somewhat interesting and might be worth writing about). I was just a little wary because there have been some overzealous editors that have come in and tried to change everything around :-) Mildly Mad^T_C 11:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ID Grammar

Hey, thanks for the assistance on the grammar bits in our recent discussion. Your edit to my deconstruction wasn't exactly what I was going for, but it still worked well. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equal rights.

Can creationists and Evolutionist have equal rights using the conjunction or.Asldfjk (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Suggestions

Thanks for your advice earlier today! My article has not posted yet. Another contributor/editor told me it was ok to reference social media -- obviously that would have been a faux pas. I am for the time being in a place where I regularly meet fascinating people who have done wonderful things -- maybe I become so passionate about sharing their accomplishments that it sounds as if I am writing about myself. I have done nothing that interesting! Hairhorse (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion of improvement censored!

There we go! i just proved myself right... 31.209.16.177 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Canterbury Tail talk 16:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aw dangit, I had an ANI all ready to go! Thanks for ruining it... Mildly Mad^T_C 16:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me or them? If you wish an ANI discussion on it you can go ahead, more calm heads looking at it is a good idea and I have no issues if someone wishes to review the block. Unfortunately some users at the articles in question won't support any suggestion that the other side may have a point and I tried to encourage the IP under the several IPs they've used this year to calm down and try and put their point across in a civil manner under the promises they will be heard. I've also warned other users not to put the IP down just because their views differ on the moon landing topic as, in all honesty, some on the other side haven't been assuming good faith either. However there comes a point when you realize you're talking to a wall. Canterbury Tail talk 17:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have added a ";-)" on the end of my previous comment. 100% agreed, it's historically quite difficult for "outsiders" to edit that article, and the established editors aren't entirely inculpable. I was putting together an ANI about the IP's uncivil behavior after s/he demonstrated they had no intention of ever having a reasoned discussion with the community. My post on their talk page was sort of a "you have one last chance to be good", and the reaction I got pretty clearly demonstrated the problem. The block reason you gave on was spot on--it was definitely a behavior issue, not a beliefs issue. Mildly Mad^T_C 20:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]