Jump to content

User talk:Mark Miller

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Checking the checkers (talk | contribs) at 04:51, 8 February 2014 (→‎You'll likely delete this, too: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hey everyone (everyone that comes here that is) I am on an unscheduled Wiki-Break and will be on and off for a short periods for a while. I will to contributing more when I am caught up with my work in real life! Thanks. Feel free to e-mail me if you wish to discuss something!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may leave me a message or ping me with {{u|Mark Miller}} on your talk page or the article talk page. Comments are generally not archived ( several years were successfully archived but stopped and need to catch up). All edits can be found in the talk page history.

Moving a discussion on the Manning naming issue that continues...

(Copy pasted from Rschen7754's talk page) This is the same issue over and over again. Some people will never be okay with respecting Chelsea's decision to live honestly as the woman she feels she is. This is an entrenched attitude that has been at play for several months. Despite their involvement in these discussions some editors insist that use of her former name, apparently anywhere, doesn't technically violate BLP enough to warrant its use. No amount of discussion, or what amounts to lawyering, seems to get away from that stance and it seems the battle itself is enjoyed. Meanwhile those who identify as or with trans women are deeply offended and that's when we decided enough is enough and we have to say something even if means dealing with these attitudes even more, it's very counterproductive and frustrating. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sportfan5000 you wrote:
  • '"Some people will never be okay with respecting Chelsea's decision .." Of course not, were you expecting such?
  • "[S]ome editors insist that use of her former name, apparently anywhere, doesn't technically violate BLP enough to warrant its use. No amount of discussion, or what amounts to lawyering, seems to get away from that stance and it seems the battle itself is enjoyed." Accusational. How does it help to accuse editors of enjoying this?
  • "Meanwhile those who identify as or with trans women are deeply offended and that's when we decided enough is enough and we have to say something even if means dealing with these attitudes even more, it's very counterproductive and frustrating." So....nothing for trans men? Please....I am deeply offended by a great deal on Wikipedia, but I don't insist that those that offend me be sanctioned as a group. This never ends well and it shouldn't. We can no more tell groups of people that they are not allowed to offend others when offending people is so easily done when just discussing the issues. If you are so sensitive that you cannot discuss how others feel or think without them being in the absolute wrong, then we are stuck in place as no one can control another's deep felt beliefs by force. it never works.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"We cannot accept File:Anne of Denmark; King Charles I when Prince of Wales; King James I of England and VI of Scotland by Simon De Passe (2).jpg" Who says? because I do not see such a restriction in Wikipedia:Image use policy indeed it specifically says "For example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa is ineligible for copyright", or under Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Legal -- PBS (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, third party copyright claims restrict their use as non free images. These may be hosted on Commons but are not used on an FA or GA article. If the images are returned I will simply call the GA declined.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is a complicated issue, but in this case these images were being claimed by a third party based on UK law only, which Wikipedia is not obligated to adhere to in this case as our servers are all located on US soil. Also, a legal threat has been made in regards to these images and can be located here. While I have the utmost respect for galleries, libraries, archives and museums, I also support Wikipedia's right to apply US law to this site and the inclusion of material clearly in the public Domain in the US. Thanks and my apologies to PBS, who kept a level head but was very persistent!--Mark Miller (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pleasure corresponding with you and a breath of fresh air after having spent part of today commenting one of those far to frequent incivility case that crop up on WP:AN and WP:ANI. -- PBS (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My greatest appreciation is the fact that both you and the originating editor that requested the GA review are administrators with such calm demeanors. It gives me a great deal of faith in Wikipedia when so many people are freaking out over admin abusing their tools. Don't think I didn't notice that. ;)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

GOCE Blitz wrap-up; join us for the November drive

Guild of Copy Editors October Blitz wrap-up

Participation: Out of eleven people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we copy edited 42 articles from WikiProject Film's backlog, reducing it by a net of 34 articles. Hope to see you at the November drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the November drive!
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New vandalism by Medeis

Please see this diff -- Medeis is vandalizing the Marcia Wallace page and about to try to start an edit war. Please give him a lengthy block. Quis separabit? 22:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator and this does not appear to be vandalism at all but a continuing content dispute. Please refrain from accusing editors of vandalism when it does not fall within that scope. I strongly urge you to request assistance on the Dispute Resolution Notice Board.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you celebrate Halloween but... Happy Halloween!

 Hello Mark Miller, Miss Bono has given you an lovely bat, to wish you a Happy Halloween! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a lovely bat! Enjoy!
Spread the goodness of a lovely bat by adding {{subst:User:Miss Bono/Halloween}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
AHH! I love it! Passing it on!--Mark Miller (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 20:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Party pooper

[1] I thought I had a date there... Begoon talk 00:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. It was an edit conflict and I don't know how I did that Begoon. Sorry for the "edit block". ;)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good. Thanks for joining me in the break from the usual crap. Appreciated. Begoon talk 00:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

  1. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
  2. Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)
  3. Canada Sasata (submissions)
  4. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions)
  5. New South Wales Casliber (submissions)
  6. Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions)
  7. London Miyagawa (submissions)
  8. Poland Piotrus (submissions)
  9. Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

  • New South Wales Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
  • Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
  • Portland, Oregon Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
  • Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
  • Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
  • Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
  • Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
  • Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
  • United States Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
  • The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to British Empire The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
  • Finally, the judges are awarding Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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 • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 01:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: U2 Concert

Hi mark, I don't know why I didn't see that message in my page until now. Sadly, I have never seen U2 in concert and I think I won't ever. That sucks, as much as seeing a concert behind the stage... even worse than that. Imagine how would not being able to see your favourite band in concert. That is awful, terrible, horrible, dreadful and... frightful... I am sure those words means the same but... it is how does it feel like for me. Again, thanks for your message. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 13:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you there. Many a band I really wanted to see and never had the chance.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California State Water Project, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Valley (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) 20:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

ANI discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GregJackP Boomer! 14:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic

I have removed the thread you started at other Constitutional amendment articles. What happens at the 2A article is not germane to those articles. A talk page is for discussing the associated article. SMP0328. (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is inaccurate. An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion. Per Wikipedia:Canvassing, Appropriate notification. It also says that such a neutrally worded notice could be made on the village pump as well. What I see you have done is revert several of these notifications which could be seen as edit warring.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RHPS Curry 'rite-of-passage' comment source

Hi! I'm so sorry if this is the wrong place to put this but I was reading the Tim Curry article tonight, remembering there had been a 'rite of passage' comment he had made regarding RHPS and saw you had removed it [here] for being unsourced (which, of course, it was). I did know of a source for that comment, an interview he had done with NRP in March 2005 [right here]. The interview is available online via that link and he calls the film a "rite of passage" at the 13:05 minute mark. I had wondered if, with this source, it would be constructive to add that comment back into the article? I debated putting this on the article's talk page but I thought that, since you had removed the comment, it was best I ask you before I did anything in case there was perhaps another reason for its removal.

I'm a fairly inactive editor, mostly a lurker, so I'm still learning and didn't want to step on any toes :) Thank-you! Courtlea (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that media file interview of Tim Curry does indeed count as a reliable source and they are hosting the content they have copyright to so it can be used with no issue. You can add that reference with n attached note to the time in the interview as well if you would like.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you! I added two comments from that interview - if possible, can you see if the changes I made are suitable? I'm afraid I messed up referencing the same source in two different areas and was unable to add that note you suggested. Would you be able to direct me on how to do so or point me on where to go so I may figure it out? Thank-you again for your help! Courtlea (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

[2]. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks,Mark, for your kind comments to Ryulong. Very well expressed. When I search for potential "Eddy's" I usually depend on the comments they get at their talk page or the type of barnstars they receive, etc. Same as when I second a nomination. I don't dig down to deep in their history looking for trouble. Heck, we all step in cow-pies as we wander the hyways and byways of WikiWorld. He deserved the award when we distributed it and he still deserves it now. BTW, I LOVE the nickname you have come up with for the Award. You probably won't believe this but my baptized name is.....Eddy. Not Edward, or Ed or Eddie. Thanks for one of the best gifts I have ever received at Wikipedia. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like Thank you!--Mark Miller (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Help with C-SPAN?

Hello there, Mark. I see you are listed as a participant at WikiProject Cooperation and I wanted to ask you if you'd could help me out with a couple of small suggestions on the C-SPAN article. I'm a consultant to C-SPAN and have been working on their behalf to improve the article for a while now. I'm currently looking to tie up two loose ends so that I can submit the article to WP:FAC.

I've posted about this on the Paid Editor Help page, though I don't believe that page is very active these days. If you can help, the request at Paid Editor Help explains everything in more detail. If you are busy elsewhere—and I do see that you are on a wiki-break right now—but know someone who you think could help with this, please let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what I can do, but I will take a look at the situation.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. The issues aren't controversial in any way, but considering Jimbo's "bright line" and the fact that I work with C-SPAN, I shouldn't be the one to make the direct edits. So I'm looking for help with implementation—provided, of course, that you agree with the changes. Please do let me know if you have any questions. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 06:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(friendly stalker)Would it not be better to make this request to the other editors currently working on the article? ```Buster Seven Talk 07:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
It doesn't much matter as long as he is asking someone who is not involved and is on a list of editors willing to try and help. I haven't found much so it's still a matter of what editors there think, He hasn't asked for a specific outcome, just help. I took a quick look but didn't take any action. I'll comment there.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Buster, I was doing exactly that, only those editors have not been around much recently. Mark, thanks for agreeing to review my questions. I'll look for your comments on that discussion page. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have much opinion about your first issue there, but I would think there are enough primary sources to change the channel number but there are no secondary sources for making the claim the initial mention in the article could use a good copy edit and better sourcing to update the information there, but it may be a bit before I get around to it.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't have any secondary sources about the change in channel number, but on the C-SPAN Talk page I've pointed to a primary source that includes the correct information, which is the C-SPAN website. This primary source is already used as a reference in the article so I've included the ref tag that links to the reference. It seems the sort of thing WP:PRIMARY allows.

If you're comfortable using this source to make the update I'd really appreciate it. If not, I'll try reaching out to other editors from WikiProject Cooperation. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is now  Done. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you a question?

? Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 13:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about on what you told me (the concert), I know that probably there were not digital cameras back in the 90's but. Do you have some picture of the show you would like to upload? We don't have pictures of MacPhisto or The Mirror Ball Man, so, any help it's very very very appreciated. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 13:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take any pictures at the concert. They always check for cameras out here. The last concert I was allowed into with my camera was a regular 35 mm with black and white film. The cool thing about these particular photos, (as bad as they are... but some came out pretty nice) are of Queen and Freddie Mercury. I have never thought of uploading them, but then I would need to reprint almost all of them. But since you bring that up, I suppose I do have one image from that concert I could upload. Any way...no pictures of Bono. Have you checked Flickr?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it doesn't matter now if it's Bono or not, we don't have any pictures of the guys in ZooTV as a band, I think, pleeease upload it. I don't have access to Flickr, but someone did and they have nothing on MacPhisto. Question here... why do they check for cameras? Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 13:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olive branch

Thank you! Much appreciated... You're obviously an intelligent, articulate, reasoned and civil person, the kind of person that I thoroughly engaging in spirited debate. Wikipedia is a mess, but the information that most come up with belongs somewhere. Its just a matter of figuring out where... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mark Miller. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 04:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

See the second, latter section titled "Editor Retention" Northamerica1000(talk) 04:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

RfC to consider

Might you consider offering an opinion on a content dispute between two editors involving the removal of parts of an article on a group of characters in a fictional novel? The discussion is here: Talk:Druids_(Shannara)#BRD_on_recent_large_addition_of_text. Thanks for considering. N2e (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Your opinion is valued at WikiProject Breakfast

As someone who used the talkpage in the past your opinion is valued at WikiProject Breakfast. Please see Want to be a guinea pig for Flow?. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You input is valued

...@ User talk:Go Phightins!#Idea. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re Dr. Who anniversary

Oh, you're most welcome but it's just the WP:TFA, I have it transcluded on my page. — Cirt (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would never have seen that, Cirt, so thanks for the transcluded info!--Mark Miller (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Remember, bow ties are cool! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just wish I knew how to tie one. LOL!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

WER/EotW_Nominations

Linking to the editors lets them know they have been nominated. It ruins the surprise when they get the Award (which may be in a month or two). I have un-done your links at the nomination talk page. The nomination talk page was to initially used to discuss the nominations, which happens rarely. The seconding requirement is really just a hold-over from the early days and a process of delaying a nomination for at least two weeks to allow conversation (if necessary). ```Buster Seven Talk 07:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that linking alone alerts the editor. I believe it requires a ping coding that would show up on their notifications. (nope...it does) I feel that surprise is not a requirement or a consideration over being able to find the editor in question with speed. But I defer to your judgment on this.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked WP:Notifications and found this
  • Mentions: When your userpage is linked to, in a signed post, on a talk page or in the Project: namespace; {{U}}, {{ping}}, {{reply to}} and {{tiny ping}} (all of which simply create userpage links) also trigger notifications
```Buster Seven Talk 08:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you click on Mentions you get....Trigger: User edit including a link to your user page from any talk page other than yours, made by someone other than you
```Buster Seven Talk 08:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC) When the nomination is made Nominees name is used on the nomination page. I create the talk page, and I don't want to take any chances. I think the surprise factor is a very uplifting part of the whole package. I may be wrong. You may be right. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a right or wrong in that equation. Surprise is nice and being easily able to find the nomination is nice, but if seconding is not needed and is just an old part of the project surprise outweighs the need to locate the nominee through a link.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kilinahe Puahi

I have a problem with your statement that Kilinahe Puahi was Kanaina's half-brother because that is contrary to Kilinahe Puahi's claim in the Hawaiian Supreme Court case [3]. The report on the case states that he claimed (impressively and convincingly) he was the son Paihewa (k) and Maunakapu (w), daughter of Kalaipuwaa (k) and Kaleimanokahoowa (w), an older sister of Kanaina's mother Kauwa. This would make Kilinahe Puahi and Kanaina second cousin once removed not half-brothers unless Kilinahe Puahi mistaken the identities of his own parents (Paihewa and Maunakapu) or you have found information stating Kanaina actually was not the son of Kauwa and Eia. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is innacuarate. That was from incorrect information I have since figured out what it referred to. They were not have brothers but distant cousins.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair...

...in reference to this, I'd counter that by asserting willingness to reconsider in light of new information is among the utmost qualities of an admin. In this case, the user saw something that was creating problems, and removed it quietly without protest. I wish everybody was as open-minded as what you seem to suggest is mere waffling. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that was waffling. I don't see it as "open minded" to remove a declaration of being in the 6th grade after someone used simple math to determine their approximate age. If that caused problems (declaring you're only in the 6th or 7th grade) over qualifications to be an admin, perhaps it was a justified issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a justified issue; that I don't doubt. Users who are known to be particularly young should be held to the same high standards as everyone else, if not higher. I do see a problem with giving that candidate grief over removing sensitive information, regardless of when he chose to do so. I think it's quite clear that a legal minor disclosing his age is a bad idea, so I guess I wonder when you would think it more reasonable to remove such a disclosure. A week from now? A month? I know of several editors who would have almost certainly kept that userbox live and engaged each user in a debate over "ageism". That would be the immature way of handling it. The user in question should have absolutely kept hints of his personal identify off his userpage to start with. I see this, though, as admitting and fixing a mistake, a process which is normal and ought to be encouraged.

It's clear the linked RfA won't pass, and I don't wish to change your opinion, but I do want to try and understand where you're coming from a bit more. Thanks for the quick response. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly was not my intention or even the outcome to give the user "grief". But their actions after the RFA began to suddenly find the disclosure to be an issue is a little odd to me, when clearly they thought it was an important enough disclosure to be rather long term. Now that they ask for tools of admin and their age is figured into the equation, it seems less than honest to suddenly hide that fact. There are many editors who disclose that they are under age. I will not debate whether or not that is something they should or shouldn't be doing. In many ways it places them in extreme danger and in other ways it allows for editors to stay on top of the situation and attempt to watch over them and keep them from any harm that may come their way. Handing them admin tools would put them in greater harms way than leaving them to simply mature. We have no policy or guideline that states that an under age user cannot be an admin, but this is far younger than I am willing to support.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on an RfC about Living members of deposed royal families and the titles attributed to them on WP

I have opened an RfC about suggested guidelines in the Manual of Style for articles about living members of families whose ancestors were deposed as monarchs of various countries and the titles and "styles" attributed to these living people, at the moment often in a misleading and inaccurate way in my opinion. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies "Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families"[4]Smeat75 (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Akahi Nui may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ''James Kimo Akahi''', also known as '''Akahi Nui''' (born on [[Maui]], February 19, 1941 is a claimant to the lapsed throne of the [[Kingdom of Hawaii]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

You seem to have misinterpreted everything I've said there. The melodramatic comment wasn't directed toward you whatsoever and the comment regarding pedos and deniers was to draw a parallel between the IPs comments and other examples of fringe idiocy. I'm "on your side" for lack of a better term. You also seem to have taken great personal offense where none has been given. I think it'd be best if you stopped commenting there for a while. John Reaves 06:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would put one of those silly wiki-love or happy panda images here if I knew where one was, but ... Yeah, I read John's comment the same way he indicates above, I think he's on "our side" on this one.
I appreciate you're upset by this whole thing. There's clear consensus it sucked, even though a few disagree. Relax, breathe deep, and we'll work on improving things.
See you around. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First thank you to both of you, but no, I think you both misunderstood my comment. I could see that John was making an attempt to support something but very seriously, that was the worst attempt at supporting this side that could have been used. It was awkwardly made and my point is, many people can see evil and bad in everything and everyone. Is that how we need to work here? Is this how we continue to compare this situation? No, I understood that John was attmepting to help, just that I don't think it did at all. Nyttend has done something almost no editor has come close to doing in my nearly seven years here. He has managed to make me think very seriously about whether Wikipedia is a safe place for gay editors. I seriously believe that Wikipedia has become dangerous. It is no longer a community of collaborators but vindictive mouth peices set on using any and all forms to wage a war against a set group of editor simply because others disaprove of them and their lifestyle.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm serious about asking for Nyttend's bit if he is doesn't acknowledge his error. I have never understood why so many people here seem to be completely incapable of accepting criticism, admitting a mistake and moving on.
Mark, please remember that cooler heads almost always prevail. I've come to respect you as someone who engages in reasoned discourse and seeks solutions. You're a wise person, so I'm sure that's all I need to say. - MrX 18:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one is hard for me Mr. X. I feel truly in danger on this site now. I'm not kidding around. When a situation, like this occurs and we really do handle it with civility, this isn't just a slap in the face, it's very much like a closed fisted punch. I really am ashamed that the community has been unable to rise above this and move on, but that block was justified and Nyttend had no reason to undue it and now everyone knows darn well if they reverse it themselves we'll have the Manning case all over again. Nyttend knows this.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I am going to step back a bit, again. I will be traveling part of the day and will be away from the computer.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and I completely agree with you. I've left a note on Nyttend's talk page with the hope that he will reconsider. Enjoy your time away. - MrX 19:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some really ill-informed hatred is being shown in the light. Expect that very little will change on this but hope that more will be enlightened that this goes on, and those were just the ones who got caught. Enjoy your break and i hope you're back soon! Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, a few comments. If there is anyone around here who probably is what you would call anti-gay, it's probably me, as one of the most ardent so-called "religious freaks" around here who sees a lot of the material in various media about gay issues as being a lot of fairly biased propaganda for the consumption of a public that either is or wants to perceive itself as being "progressive" or "liberal" or whatever. By saying that, of course, I mean it in the "hate the sin, not the sinner" way, but I see a lot of content around here, like the renewed debate about Abe Lincoln being gay on the talk page there (yes, really) and some old discussion about John Bosco being gay because something called him "dangerous" indicate that there is some bias on both sides here. Sometimes some of us make really miserably phrased comments sometimes, and that looks like what John Reaves did here, although I do not by saying that include him in the anti-gay "us" I might include myself in. Personally, as someone who has desysoped himself and more or less retired from this site, except on days I add comments on talk pages regarding other WF sites here and look for responses to them, I hope you don't retire indefinitely. If it were to come to that, however, I think you might note that several editors have changed their usernames after a long period, including at least one who was an admin at the time, now called User:Hiding, and me, who tied up the servers for about ten minutes when my name change was done automatically. I have never used my real name here, because, honestly, it wouldn't help and no one would know it anyway. Maybe, if you wish, you might be able to change your name and signatures or edit history if you feel some sort of threat here, which would be a damn good reason actually. But I hope that you continue to edit, even if you feel the need to change your username. If you ever perceive a real threat, of course, by all means contact the Foundation and ArbCom immediately. Regarding the block, honestly, I couldn't do anything now anyway, but as maybe one of the people least sympathetic to homosexuality around here, I support Nyttend's move and hope no one does reverse it. I can be and sometimes am a bastard, but that doesn't mean it should be acceptable here. John Carter (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey John, before I read the entirety of your post I wanted to say that (after seeing the beginnings of it) that I, for one, have NEVER seen you as a freak. I have seen you as a very good and concerned editor and have attempted to work with you as much as I can...even though many of my questions to you, directly on your talk page went unanswered. I have never held that against you. You have a right to your opinion of me as much as I have a right to my opinion of YOU. The only thing I will say is...I have never attempted to make you defend your opinion....EVER!!!! --Mark Miller (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I read the entire thing. Very well done sir. However I want to mention something...if I have to run scared from this site because others want to make an issue and create the danger (that is real...hey, I can defend myself and if anyone is stupid enough to try something in the real world....it is generally frowned upon by the state of California to take any action against the home of a peace officer) I will seek the best help I can from others. I will not be scared off be even REAL danger. I am not a coward and would die for my beliefs. Let us hope it does not come to that, but clearly I have seen my user page and talk page attacked, but that could just be some random idiot. Of course you support others that agree with your ideology...but the difference between you and me....is that I don't always agree with even those that do support my ideology.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, my apologies for not responding to a lot of talk page comments I've gotten from various people, apparently including you, I really did stretch myself too thin for a long time and couldn't do everything I could or should have. The only thing I can really say is that I remember when User:Hiding, before taking that name, really did use his real name, and that use of his name got him in some trouble in some way, he didn't specify exactly how, so he changed it. I would agree attacking a cop in California at home or elsewhere is stupid in the extreme, for sooo many reasons (I went to school in LA, and had a cousin in the Orange County Sheriff department, and I remember a little there). And, for what it's worth, I actually agree with you about how changing Nyttend's action would probably be counterproductive, although I guess I should add I didn't review the full discussion, so don't know what the details are. (dumb of me, but, hey, that's not news). But, if someone made comments like I sometimes have, stupidly, made, even when I thought the evidence supported them, like in the arb com that led me to desysop myself, they can and should be sanctioned. But I don't think I or anyone else would think the less of you if you were to change your user name in such a way as to make it harder for some of the weirds out there to get at you in some way. But, considering I have more or less retired from actively editing much outside of discussion pages on this entity, I would have nothing to lose if you were to request a bit of a (possibly) somewhat civil attack dog to make life difficult for some of the idiots out there who might try to actively try to make your life more difficult for less than acceptable reasons. John Carter (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, you have always had my utmost respect and I have considered you one of those editors that I hold in high regard. Your work on the WikiProjects stands out beyond everyone and your encouragement has always been something I felt to be a great asset to your work on Wikipedia. However...I don't actually feel that changing Nyttend's action would probably be counterproductive. I think it would be extremely productive. I want to be clear now, if I haven't been before.
I also want to be clear on something. My name is really Mark James Miller and using my real name on an encyclopedia site should never be an issue. What makes it an issue is when other editors decide to use their ideology OVER the goals of Wikipedia...that means they have a true conflict of issue, as Nyttend has proven very much to have. No one should ever feel in danger over writing encyclopedic and neutral information and I have kept a good distance from LGBT articles. Not that I have stayed off all of them, but that my views of the gay community have never interfered with my editing or been a particular issue...ever. I have been blocked for a few things (not all withi reason or policy) but never for any of my contributions to gay related articles or opinion. I am a true free thinker and have many Christian friends and family that keep me particularly neutral...at least in my opinion. But I have always used my real name. Even when editing under the username Amadscientist, I have always disclosed my real ID. If that is an issue....I would leave Wikipedia all together as a lost cause and fight off wiki against it. Seriously. If one has to hide yourself just to post here...it is a lost cause and needs to be taken down. But that simply IS NOT THE CASE!!! There is an opportunity here for us as a community to get past this and rise above it. We cannot allow our own personal beliefs to interfere with other editor's contributions, which I truly believe Nyttend's action have done. Simply put. Either we are here to write an encyclopedia in an accurate and well researched manner or we are trying to lie to the public and make Wikipedia nothing but an opinion space. Not that I don't like the idea of Wikipedians having such a space....I am about to begin such a project actually to allow editors a place to do just that...however, it has to be done right and not in the article space. I have to believe (and I do) that Wikipedia has a place in my life or else I have wasted 7 years I can never get back.....or my copyrights that I have donated to the foundation, Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Wikivoyage and Wikibooks. Have I wasted all this effort on a place that feels I should not be here? Please...tell me it isn't so. Tell me that my patience and understanding of those that are different than me have not been in vain and wasted effort only helping those with an agenda of hate and disapproval. You see...I am a Pagan and have very strong views against Christianity. If I no longer need to hold back my criticism and disgust as those who do not approve of my homosexuality, then my contributions to Catholic, Mormon and other various articles will change dramatically. But for now I feel it is best to see how this plays out. I am different in this situation from many others only in that I was directly involved and now feel my neutrality on that issue raised on Jimbo's talk page regarding that "Map" was wasted on deaf ears. I truly hope I am wrong...but everything points to me being right on that single issue alone. Thanks for your comments here. As always, you give me a great deal to think about. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I finally looked over the discussion about the block more fully, and, actually, I kind of agree that reversing the "unblock" would probably not be a bad idea, although as someone who used to myself tell people "you get one more last chance" before blocks, I could see how someone else, given the particular situation here, might do the same thing. I've never used my real name, in part, because, honestly, I have relatives who might perhaps be negatively influenced if I did. Some hold some high-profile, very visible positions, and they probably wouldn't want the family name associated with some of what I've done here. Other editors have indicated that once in a while people at work have razzed them for their edits, and I can see maybe holding a real name on that basis too. I myself would hope that wouldn't happen too often, but can see how it might happen at times, and wouldn't want to lose an editor because of such behavior. Personally, I do not at all think that you should not be here, rather the opposite - we need as many good voices willing to adhere to our principles as we can get. I remember once being accused of being a Jesuit priest who was trying to use the site to basically tow the party line, and if my name were known, yeah, maybe accusations like that might create trouble for me at work. But that might be a different matter than using one's real name, particularly if one edits in a lot of topics which can be controversial or might be useful for enemies at work, like Hiding being a big contributor to content about comic books, for instance. Yeah, some people might hold that against someone come consideration for promotion. And, FWIW, as someone who has reservations about the homosexuality primarily on the basis of, like I said, the potential long-term cultural/sociological impact (something I also, admittedly, know little if anything about), I hope you realize that even some of us who have some reservations about some aspects of homosexuality and current issues related to it don't really have the same objections to individuals who may be homosexual, anymore than we might to people who might be (I wish I could think of better examples) autistic, mentally ill, developmentally disabled, short, overweight, underweight, near-sighted, flat-footed, or otherwise possess a common characteristic which others might use as the butt of jokes or the basis of discrimination, considering that many or most of "us" are at least some of those things (in my case short, fat, and near-sighted) ourselves. John Carter (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about deleting your post on Jimbo's talk page

And to clarify, I did not select you or anybody else for that failed RfC, you must be on the feedback request service list. I decided to try not to think about the royalty stuff anymore yesterday, who cares about all that balderdash anyway, but when I saw that Jimbo said I had a point it made me think again. There is only so much arguing about such things I can stand however and when I start to get full of anger or bitterness it doesn't seem worth it. RegardsSmeat75 (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. No...bitterness is just not worth the effort. Trust me.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italian / Roman Architecture

Hey, I notice you have an interest in Roman architecture. If you don't know about it, you might enjoy this:

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Texts/Vitruvius/Book4.html

- Jake Bottero =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Looks like some nice public domain images that could be converted to SVG files as well. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your image of Portico of Pompey - The temples at the far end still exist. It is now a Cat Sanctuary (no shit) the location called Largo di Torre Argentina - http://www.RomanCats.com - I send them 20E every few months and always vist when in Rome (which is not that often, being from Seattle). =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one of them is still buried under a street. That is very nice of you to donate to the cat sanctuary.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My people are from Northern Italy. Thus, we are not Roman. Romans are Italian, but most Italians are not Roman. While in some hill town a few years back, staying in a local hotel, I noticed they were propping the door to the back ally open with a Roman brick (they are not scarce). I don't know what the laws are, but it made it home with me. It now props open my door, and I'm still amazed the TSA did not think it was a brick of hashish and confiscate it. Thanks for editing. =//= Johnny Squeaky 06:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mother's line is from central Italy. I believe we are from a Roman decent but that may not be factually accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Influence

You will always have a lot of influence with me. Please know that.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

I saw you on the cultural partners email list. Could I schedule a voice chat with you sometime? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you needed something a little stronger

```Buster Seven Talk 16:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slams it down. I'll take another one...but make it a double. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll join you. "Barkeep!! Two TALL whiskey sours and some peanuts, please!"

WER is about a year and a half old. I just browsed thru the early history of the project and remembered what a good, stimulating time it was for us to build the place. New ideas, new members, action, possibilities, teams or no teams, input, collaborating, construction, etc. I guess that's always the case when something is new. It was an empty canvas and we just glopped the paint on and didn't worry about how it looked. But it turned out looking pretty good with a lot of potential. But now, 1 and a half down the line, it seems like the only definite activity/action WP:WER is creating is the talk page and Editor of the Week. What happened to the potential? For me, WER was an off-shoot of User:Buster7/Wikiknights and some of the ideas I had during my earliest days as a novice. I shared and incorporated some of those ideas into the early construction as I'm sure you did with your input and insight back then. But...has the project retained any editors? I would guess a few. I know that, because of my WER membership, and wanting to put action to our plans, I was able to convince User:Petrarchan47 to step down off the 'ledge of retirement' and return to editing. Also, Im sure the EotW has been a vehicle for retaining editors. But I know we had higher hopes. With Dennis on break it's like there is no one at the helm, no one to guide us. I don't want to be just another place for editors to gripe and to quarrel. Sorry for the rant but you and I and a few others were active from the beginning. We (not you and I but other members of WER) need to DO something...even if it doesn't work. Trail and error. Maybe revisit the team concept. Action will set us free. "Barkeep? annuther round! ```Buster Seven Talk 08:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buster7, I know that WER has helped in the retention of a number of editors. I know that EOTW has been a great success and has helped to showcase the great editors we have. But...everything at WER seems to be in a state of "WTF" and the issue for me has always been the fact that we stopped being proactive and let things go flat. I am really considering some dramatic , BOLD changes without consensus, because I believe that there are simply too many cooks trying to steer WER in too many different directions and I think it was Dennis that might have said (and I am probably wrong) that someone has to rule the roost on occasion.
I want to begin to transform the main page to something a little more interactive. So that the content changes with fresh stuff on a regular basis like EOTW does. I would also like to put WER back on the community portal eventually but removed it because it became little more than a slug fest on the talk page with continuing battles from other venues. I plan to bring WP: WikiProject Conflict resolution to the main page as a place were editors can interact within a framework of guided and mentored discussions to take back the WER talk page as a place to improve the project and to begin the concept of WPCR as a location for editors to test the waters on conflict that is not content related. I also will be starting and opinion section for editors to be formally invited to make OP Eds that appear on the WER page.
I would also like to see if editors like Anne Delong and Sara Stierch would like to collaborate with others on a woman's perspective or, Women retention effort. I think the Manning case has shown a huge gender gap issue needing to be addressed in some neutral and well researched manner. There are always different things we can do and while I don't want to wipe the canvas clean, we might still want to paint over a few things.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of my best friends is an artist. Not famous but an artist nonetheless. He would paint as we visited and I would watch him create little masterpieces. At the next visit his easel would have a different canvas and I would ask him, "What happened to the seascape you were working on last week?" "It's right here...under this portrait of a woman."
Bold changes, without consensus. I like that! ```Buster Seven Talk 09:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a landscape artist myself...I don't want WER to be like the several unfinished canvasses I have sitting around my home. I really need to get my crap together and finish them.....and maybe even sell one eventually. That would be nice to. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rushed" 3O

Hey Mark, I appreciate you taking the time to post on my talk page - apologies for the delay in responding. At the time and looking at the information provided, I felt my opinion was accurate. I apologize if you feel I rushed into things, though upon reading your comments I'd still recommend leaving the source in for now (as it is a source) and opening an RfC, a comment which I will make on the talk page as soon as I post this comment. I don't think it'd hurt to get more community input - and as you well know, a 3O is non-binding, and if you feel so strongly than that's fine. It's clear that you and KAVEBEAR have different opinions and aren't changing them, and I respect that. Thanks, GRUcrule (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a matter of anything binding. it was a matter of no discussion and you just made a quick determination without addressing the fact that the source does not make the claim it is being used to support. Opinion is one thing, misuse of a source is another. I have addressed the issue with the other editor and for now am leaving the article alone until further research can determine the accurate family tree and parentage of a number of subjects. Some of them are simply not accurate to even secondary sources since they make leaps.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty clear the process of 30 sucks and I have no idea why editors are even allowed such drive by opinion at all.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will not change

Or, rather, it will only change when it has become socially unacceptable to abuse non heterosexual people. In the intervening period we work best by looking at floating voter theory.

All we have to do is, quietly, and with logic and dignity, seek to woo the hearts and minds of those who are undecided. It is obvious that we will not ever convince Westboro's bigots, and we do not need to convince Elton John. We need, simply, to show the normal, intelligent, honest folk that it is unacceptable to hurl insults at, or to be biased against, people because of their sexual orientation.

The more reasonable and polite we are the better we make our case, but it seems, then, that we just take the blows and insults. I'm old and ugly enough to take them and to shrug them off. They do not, of themselves, matter. What matters is that others start to acknowledge that they are unacceptable.

It also matters that today's victims of abuse here understand that people will call it out as abuse, and will do it in a determined, yet wholly non abusive manner. It does get better. If you google my name underlying my ID you may see and agree. You seem to agree already,though. Fiddle Faddle 13:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually understand what you are saying and at the heart of it I would have to agree. However...I also know that this site has policies and guidelines and as I have said before and will say again, if the community can't even handedly use of these policies and guidelines, we have to demonstrate to those that hold the "tools" that it doesn't matter what the rest of the community thinks of us, they have an obligation not to prop up, support or give advantage to those that cannot work with others. I am serious. I have not worked for seven years with so many diverse persons to be shoved aside by unthinking idiots just because they lack a true moral compass. I also believe that yes, at times a calm voice works wonders...then again, sometimes you have to take a side and defend it to the end. We (everyone in the community) do not need Wikipedia as much as Wikipedia needs us. If that cannot be figured out...then yes, Wikipedia is on a course to crash and burn and I will simply roast marsh mellows over the flames.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But those lacking the moral compass have the most fun. They are the ones who spear the unfortunate minority editors on little toasting forks and roast them over the BBQ that is WIkipedia. Being the bully is far more fun than being bullied. What we need to do is to stand firm. I don't mean we can't object, or can't cry 'foul!", but we can spoil their fun by not reacting in the way that makes them enjoy themselves. There is space for Black Panther salutes, of course there is. The Gay Liberation Front may yet be required at Wikipedia, too, but there is more achieved by being Gandhi (how do you spell that man?) than by being Rambo. Fiddle Faddle 13:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very true. By the way, you have a new comment elsewhere. A video link and yes...it does get better, but as I my video link states, we have to stand up to suicide and bullying. It gets better, yes, but for some it ended badly because no one stood up for them and they didn't have the strength. For many they will never understand what some go through and will laugh and make sport of it. I have been far too complacent in the past. I could have done more to counter the hate of Prop 8, but I was wrapped up in my mother's illness and eventual death that same year. After that, I decided to fight back and not be a rug for others to wipe their feet on. But I do have to say, your vid was a wonderful thing to watch. Google my name and you're in for a shock...because that aint me! LOL! But if you google my name and it gets better Sacrmento....--Mark Miller (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Each of us can do only what we can do. If some do only one small thing that is enough. Others carry a huge burden of things that they do. I do what I do. We cannot save them all, but I know I have saved one, and that one was not me. I will look for your comment, and I thank you for the compliment. I never feel as if I deserve them, but I accept them with happiness. Fiddle Faddle 14:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Former royal families etc

Hi there, thanks for your helpful comments in various places on the matter of how members of deposed royal families are referred to in articles on WP. You say on Jimbo's talk page "Even you have to admit that Mr. Wales was very respectful of your concerns. Ignore everyone else and focus on his very well thought out suggestions." Very sound advice - do you care enough about such matters to continue to advise me? I mean help me to focus on the best way to try to carry out his suggestions without breaking a lot of rules and so forth which I have unwittingly done - I don't even know if it is against some rule to ask you this. I am not on some sort of grudge crusade against ex-royal families, I just think the way it is presented is confusing and I knew it would be no use trying to get anything clarified if I limited discussion just to the people who watchlist those article, I had to make a bit of a fuss and try to get the attention of some editors outside the circle of royalty specialists. Anyway would it be OK if I continue to ask your advice, for instance if you think another RfC on a specific issue would be a good idea? I am going to be very busy for a few weeks now, so no hurry. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013 GOCE drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors November 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
The November 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the December blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 04 December 2013

Talk:The Simpsons

There is currently a RFC discussion about the content with the sources that the user AmericanDad86 has been adding, and you have been requested to make a comment about this, since you have responded to this discussion, and the other discussion that had happened recently. Blurred Lines 15:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are doing well ...

I too am mostly away, but still look back from time to your efforts. Good news is always content generation, but on the bad, have personally been embroiled of late in nonsense at Species and Steroids. Note, I log infrequently, but if the matter is in my expertise I sign "LeProf" despite being logged out (which allows work to be found through comprehensive advanced search, if memory fails). This since being stalked and "outed" (personal information disclosed) by an aggrieved editor, and as a general protest to wikipedia nonsense like tallying edits to determine preeminence. Latest new contributions from me are a stub on Biomimetic synthesis, and an article on David A. Evans, due in any day now. Drop a line some time, at the formal User:Talk, or at talk. Cheers, LeProf (with or without the _7272). —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement

Hello, Mark Miller:

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

Posted by: Northamerica1000(talk) 18:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the attention of Your Royal Wikiness

Since you were one of the main participants in previous RfC's on the subject, perhaps you would be interested to know that I started here a thread whose aim is to throw ideas around about potential improvements on how we denote people with pretensions to royal and feudal titles. (Apologies for the title of this message! I can't help introducing a bit of levity to "serious" subjects.) -The Gnome (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not amused. Actually we are so "we'll" take a look. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Nigri

Hi. You started a new section on the Jessica Nigri talk page on the topic of whether the attendance/modeling table is warranted, but a discussion on that very topic had already been started earlier, so I moved your message to that one in order to merge the two sections, so we can keep that discussion, and all its participants, in one place to avoid confusion and redundancy. I hope you're okay with that. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Good job and thank you!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight

Just fyi (my apologies if it is something with which you are already aware): in accordance with Wikipedia:Oversight, the best way to get an oversighter to deal with your request is to send them an email. isaacl (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks....I did.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Writ Keeper has already dealt with the request. isaacl (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for mentioning that as well. --Mark Miller (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Hi there, just wondering if you wouldn't mind reviewing my article, would be so much appreciated. Thank you so much. Kieran3004 The Extreme Sport Challenges Association <---Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran3004 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Re: "Less than Optimal?

Hi Mark.
What Neotarf posted on the retention project's talk page is deeply insulting to Cambalachero, Wee, and myself. I don't want to get into the details, but Wee (who is not even a party in the Argentine history case) was simply defending himself from offensive allegations. I agree with you that Wee should not say anything more, but the whole matter leaves a sour taste.
I would appreciate it if you could please collapse that topic so that it ends there along with the insults.
Happy holidays.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would actually be unfair of me to collapse that. I do understand what you are saying, but there are much worse threads and comments I didn't collapse and really, if it isn't an outright BLP policy violation (let me know if anything is) I shouldn't collapse by request. However I find that User:Writ Keeper is someone who has a better eye for these things and...as you may know...my hands are dirty with the subject and I am involved. So...it would not be right.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good Mark. I apologize for making the request; you're right, it's unfair given your involvement in the situation. The understanding is appreciated.
I'd like to respond to the matter myself, but don't want to keep the matter alive. Wee has pretty much said it all.
Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Retention

Hi Mark,

Just for information [5] I had no intention of making any further comment. Whilst irritated by User:Lecen's constant personal attacks directed toward me, I have kind of learned to ignore them and others like them. That comment was prompted by the beatification of an abrasive editor, a repeat of the same comments and a frankly one sided view posted at Signpost by one of the contributors [6].

No offence but you're commenting at an editor retention noticeboard and its precisely because of WP:TAG team edit warring, lack of WP:AGF and personalisation of disputes perpetutated by Lecen and his cronies that causes people to leave. I am curious why you picked my comment out of all there?

Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 09:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't picking on you Wee. It was just when I came upon the thread and I do that a lot on the WER talk page when others do the same. Seriously, check it out. I piss people off often by asking for them to stop being so critical of others there. Also...WER isn't a noticeboard but you are not the first editor to call it that and at this point we may as well just go ahead and call it an "un-official conflict resolution noticeboard". I am working on something more formal but in order to create it, I need a little more information.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't assume you were picking on me :-) (I did WP:AGF) By way of explanation, my mother is Spanish and was a refugee from Franco's Spain, so the accusation of using "fascist" sources is getting into deeply personal territory. I think Lecen gets a kick out of pushing people's buttons. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that. I had my buttons pushed the other night on another site by a friend and we went round and round and today I just posted a link to our trout page. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have your WP:TROUT arm warmed up, Talk:Operation Chengiz Khan, there are two editors who need a good trouting there. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

WP:WER op-ed

  1. Suggest that we get Buster to downsize their WikiKnight guide into a top-ten-ways-to-be-a-wikiknight, plus maybe a second op-ed, top-ten-ways-to-defeat-a-wikidragon
  2. I actually have some slight access to a wikiDragon, maybe they'll give us the top-ten-ways-to-roast-a-newbie-to-crisp-tasty-goodness
  3. FiddleFaddle has written a guide to creating articles , which has sound advice
  4. JethroBot has a very good essay that I toss out often, WP:IMAGINE
  5. you (Mark) prolly have some topic you would like to op-ed-itorialize about methinks

Noticed up above, you are speaking of Doing Things.... so! How often should we do these op-ed things? How do we schedule what order they happen in, and schedule mutual-edit-fest op-ed cleanup work? We can use the WER talkpage, I suppose. Can we create WP:OP-ED WP:OP—ED and point it at the latest (or at the archive of past op-eds maybe)... guess I'll stop there, and see if you're nodding in agreement, or shaking your head rapidly enough your eyebrows frizzed.  ;-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh! I only just noticed that WP:OP-ED is a bluelink, when I originally composed it I used WP:OPED and then added the hyphen at the last second to make it a redlink, but that was *also* no good. The latter is about editorializing not being allowed in mainspace, and the former goes to SignPost, unsurprisingly I suppose.  :-)   Fixed it with a strikeout. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The idea for an opinion page on WER has some small support, but as you can see there is also a Signpost page where editors write for the Wikipedia "newspaper". The WER idea is WikiProject idea for opinion that gives some focus on editor creativity directed in a positive way to allow some further expression of ideas and help further network editors together more by simply allowing another venue to be spotlighted on WER as with Editor of the Week.

Above you see that there are some further ideas that I have for updating and continuing WER. one of the ideas was more interaction but, short of attempting to creating a notice board, I was thinking that more actual conflict resolution discussion should begin and efforts itself could be attempted with some ideas that might be useful.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike signpost, because 1) they advertise new issues with automated talkpage-spam, and 2) they don't have a narrow focus -- I'm not opposed to adding WER to the list of signpost-stuff, of course, but I also think we should try and get word-of-mouth-advertising separate from signpost. As to the second point, agree that it is abso-posi-blatantly-necessary for at least some of the WP:RETENTION folks to start actually getting their hands dirty, and working to resolve disputes in the nitty-gritty fashion. That said, I think that the WER talkpage is already too much of a noticeboard-environment, where people come to gripe in front of the crowd, which results in a flurry of short sharp commentary, which of course can hardly be expected to ever lead to any deep resolution. Direct personal conversations may work better.
  Anyways, I guess my suggestion is this -- maybe we should publicize the WP:RETENTION talkpage as a place to *request* help with retention-related-disputes. Then, the actual *discussion* of that dispute can be accomplished elsewhere, on the disputed-article talkpage, or just on the user-talkpages of the involved individuals, or prolly most neutrally, on the user-talkpage of the first uninvolved WP:RETENTION member to respond. Later, when the dispute is resolved, a one-liner which summarizes what happened and gives a pointer to the discussion can be pasted back on the WP:RETENTION talkpage. Does this make sense? We retain the WP:RETENTION talkpage for higher-level meta-discussions about wide problems, while simultaneously acting as travelling wiki-monks that visit the areas where trouble arises. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost has a different focus and is more news worthy issues, where I wanted something that gave a little more freedom within the normal standards and guidelines. A likely shortcut would be WP:WPOE could even see a silhouette of Edgar Allen Poe as a starter project logo. The first part of that project would be to set up the basic nomination process similar to EOTW perhaps the basic template could have some basic information begun on the editor that is chosen, to introduce the editor and give some background similar to the "Eddy" award, but this would be something like his more opinionated brother, "Edgar"--Mark Miller (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Well...Wikipedia:WikiProject Opinion Editorial is now created.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Monks...Hmmm...I like that , too. Has less of a combative tone than Knights. WikiMonks. Has a nice friendly "I'm here to help" ring to it!```Buster Seven Talk 22:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sometimes you need knights, but sometimes you need monks. And sometimes you need a samurai pretending to be a monk, if you like Akira Kurosawa movies, anyways.  :-)   WikiMonks are better when travelling from outlying rural village to outlying rural village, aka the neglected articles where the conflicts are rare, but so is the opportunity to learn a valuable lesson or koan or whatever. WikiKnights are more suited to *feudal* villages, which are governed by the local WikiProject, and tend to have regulars... which get into feuds, that being the meaning of feudal, apparently!
  Often the wikiKnight can use their wisdom to defuse conflict, but other times they have to wikiJoust. For the most part, the wikiMonks are also good at these tasks, because they can pull some zen shaolin master tricks on the feuding editors if necessary. The thing you need wikiKnights for is when you have an entrenched armada of feuding editors, in some fortified article like Provisional Irish Republican Army... a dozen wikiKnights can liberate the article with a cavalry charge, more easily than a dozen monks can diplomatically handle the problems. Of course, combined arms tactical arrangements are best. See Yul Brunner. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, agree that we should aim for more freedom/latitude/crudity/lewdity/humour/lunacy than is permitted in the stodgy old SignPost. We're the edgy *alternative* local paper. And sure, we can make up some sort of nomination-process... but dictatorship is often more efficient in the short run. I suggest we fill the op-ed-queue, with the first three op-ed-submissions. Mark is hereby declared dictator-for-life, until such time as the nomination-process takes on a life of its own.
  O great leader, are you thinking that Buster should be first in the queue? His essay is good, but too long at present methinks, and is undergoing heavy revisions. What about WP:IMAGINE by JethroBot, which is short, and needs a quick clean-up? FiddleFaddle's your-first-article essay is also reasonably terse already, but needs a bit more cleanup. And maybe the new dictator would like to assign themselves a slot, in which to opine? If we have an op-ed-queue, we can focus on the first one in the list. Also, once we drag other people like Kudpung and Liz and Eric into writing something for us, they can be added to the queue without the pressure of being first/last/whatever. Is this a biweekly publication? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten, or disowned.

We some nice what is wikipedia-all-about chats (in re: sciences/madscientist login, see User talk:Leprof 7272), and after being away a bit I posted above ("Hope you are doing well ...") Forgotten, disowned, busy? LeProf ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

er?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talkstalk sez... allow me to translate. "Dear Mark, back when you were User:Amadscientist, you had some nice chats with User:LeProf and/or LeProf_7272, on the subject of what-is-wikpedia-all-about. LeProf has been away, but as of Dec 5th[7] they are back! Yet you have not replied, can it be you have forgotten who they are, disowned them Foh.Evah, or maybe you are just busy-busy?"  :-)   Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

House of Lancaster

Hi Mark

I have attempted to address the GA queries, what do you think?

Cheers

Richard Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were great. I made a slight copy edit and the article has been listed GA.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Freedom from Want (painting)/GA1

I have responded at Talk:Freedom from Want (painting)/GA1. It seems you decided you were going to fail this, but have not yet done so. I resized the image in about 2 minutes and copied the FUR from another image in about 1 minute.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't know what method you use to resize an image. This is a 2 minute method for future reference. Save the original full size file. Import it into a software package like Paint or GIMP. In this case I had to resize to 25%, which meant I had to type the number 25 in the resize box and hit return. Then I saved the file. Then I went to the file page and hit the "Upload a new version of this file" button. I then. Browsed for the saved resized file. Typed the explanation. In this case I was flustered that you were failing my work and typed cropped instead of resized. Then hit upload file. Really only 2 minutes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done anything but, the criteria would have me at least fail at that point. I just stopped reviewing and believe it or not, just checking in to see if anyone had advanced on that or not.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you evaluate my progress.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

Editor retention
Thank you for quality contributions on difficult topics such as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, for your work in Editor Retention, even in difficult cases, for presenting facts "in a neutral fashion, with compassion, understanding and a calm demeanor" (more), - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 337th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I always really appreciate your remembering all these different situations! Loved the Pumpkin Sky image.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

GOCE December 2013 Blitz wrap-up and January Drive invitation

December Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors

The December blitz ran from December 8–14. The theme for this blitz was articles tied in some way to religion. Seven editors knocked out 20 articles over the course of the week. Our next blitz will be in February, with a theme to be determined. Feel free to make theme suggestions at the Guild talk page!

The January 2014 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in October and November 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2013. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in October and November 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there!

Coordinator election: Voting is open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January through 30 June 2014. Voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.

– Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

[[

image:Christmas_tree_sxc_hu.jpg|70px|left]]

Mediran (t • c) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Mediran (t • c) 08:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Photo Discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Happy New Year, Mark Miller

Soham — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

GOCE 2013 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report

The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations!

Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 08 January 2014

GAR notification

Freedom from Want (painting), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to MILHIST

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[8] I will not be making my ballet debut in Edinburgh after all...keep smiling. ;-) Wee Curry Monster talk 17:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back. I shall toss out the tights! LOL!--Mark Miller (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

This week's article for improvement

File:Oseberg ship head post.jpg
An animal-head post found in the Oseberg vikingship, an example of Nordic art
Hello, Mark Miller.

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

Nordic art

Previous selections: Gopher (animal) • Meal

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...

Posted by: Evad37 [talk] 00:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Mahiʻai Kāneakua, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Committee of Safety (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) 09:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant Stakeout

I've taken this to WP:RSN - you commented on it before. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

This week's article for improvement

The Low Countries as seen from space
Hello, Mark Miller.

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

Low Countries

Previous selections: Nordic art • Gopher (animal)

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: ///EuroCarGT 01:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

This week's article for improvement

The Low Countries as seen from space
Hello, Mark Miller.

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

Low Countries

Previous selections: Nordic art • Gopher (animal)

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]
Thanks for answering my question at the tea house. Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa 05:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

-Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Marzan (talk • contribs) 06:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2014)

The life sciences involve the study of living organisms
Hello, Mark Miller.

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

Life sciences

Previous selections: Low Countries • Nordic art

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

WikiProject World Heritage Sites

Hi, I’m a student at American University and currently taking a “Wikipedia and Public Knowledge” class. We’ve been tasked to find and contribute to a WikiProject and this project caught my attention. I’m really interested in helping with your World Heritage Sites WikiProject, specifically the list of World Heritage Sites in Peru. I’ll be traveling to Cusco and Machu Picchu in the beginning of March so I’d love to add some photographs to the project when I return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlhill23 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll likely delete this, too

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Checking the checkers (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mark_Miller&oldid=594470946"