User talk:Mill 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am temporarily watching it, save for template messages.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
  • If you want my response to a discussion in an article's talk page, feel free to notify or ping me.

Welcome![edit]

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Rather belated, so I am sorry, but the links may come in handy....although you seem to be doing fine so far. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Happy Holidays and Wonderful 2017. Quis separabit? 06:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Remove #REDIRECT from my user page[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I placed a redirect to my Talk page on my User page. I now regret this decision. How do I remove the #REDIRECT from my user page? Mill 1 (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Simply click on this link [1] - it will allow you to access the edit window for your userpage - simply delete the REDIRECT line and replace it with whatever else you would like on your User page. Mike1901 (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

René of Anjou[edit]

Please DON'T just change death dates etc without adding a reference. This is a common pattern in "subtle vandalism". I nearly just reverted you (which I would have been perfectly entitled to do) and had to spend several minutes checking that you were in fact correct. The French article is still wrong, btw. You can use trhe same ref. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

my reply

Pope Hilarius[edit]

Pope Hilarius died February 28, 468; that is his Feast Day. Please stop adding him to February 29. General Ization Talk 20:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I got no reaction to my message on your Talk page I moved pope Hilarius from DOY page February 28 to February 29 again. I believe I have good reason to believe the date of death 28 February is erroneous. Let me state my arguments:
  1. The website of the Vatican itself states Feb. 29 as the end of the pontificate. This source is used as a reference on article Pope Hilarius
  2. I checked other wiki's on this topic. The Italian, French and Spanish wiki's all state Feb. 29
  3. If I perform this Google books search on Feb. 29 I get relevant results. This is not the case when I run this Google books search on Feb. 28.
You state that Feb. 28 is the feast day of the pope. I can not find corrobating evidence for that. I seems that the major source for it is the wiki page in question.
I understand that in light of conflicting data we should strive for consensus. I also would like my edits to be as factual and neutral as possible. I hope I made my case.

May 2017[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to February 24, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 08:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Need help on Wikipedia advanced search[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I need help searching for specific phrases in articles. I've worked with regular expression before but apparently I'm too thick to understand the Perl-dialect.
For instance: I want look for persons who died on 24 June during the 10th century (=from 900 AD until 1000 AD). Help:Searching and Help:Advanced search do not provide proper examples how to use wildcards.
If I would know the specific year I could just use this query.
However, I want to look in the range 900 – 999. What do I enter in the search textbox? Or better yet: what would the equivalent of this query look like?
Thank you in advance.

Mill 1 (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, if you want help looking for something, you may want to go to the reference desk to ask for help looking for information. For help with the search function (and other questions about how Wikipedia works), go to the help desk to ask this question. Also, if you have any suggestions, or problems with the search function, go to the technical village pump and raise the problem there. Sorry I couldn't be of more help though. If you need any more help, click here, or just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  22:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks! Mill 1 (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Unreferenced additions to days of years[edit]

I see you're making quite a few unsourced additions to various days of the year articles. WP:V in general, and explicitly WP:DAYS requires a direct reference for each entry. Toddst1 (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Todd, Thank you for your comment. To be frank, I am at a complete loss here. These edits are part of an ongoing project to improve the quality of the Birth- and Death sections of WP:DAYS articles. With the use of an application I've been steadily improving WP:DAYS by cross-refercing the data with year pages. Since 2016 I must have added thousands of unreferenced entries and corrected/(re)moved hundreds more. You can read more about this initiative here.
All these edits were monitored by WikiProject DOY-members @Rms125a@hotmail.com, @Deb and @Mufka. The only feedback I got during this period were a few revisions because of insufficient entry notabilty and a warning not to mark entry additions as minor. After a small break because of work on other projects I resumed work on the DOY-pages this weekend. I started again from year 600 AD to perform an automated cross-reference on YoB/YoD-categories. During this process I also corrected and added some DOY-entries because of new edits since I last checked these early medieval years. So you can imagine my surprise when I read your warning. I did a random check on 15 DOY-articles and none of them currently contain references. Just like the Year-pages all entries contain links to bio's where the references are to be found. Until there is clarity on this I am suspending all my activities regarding WP:DAYS. This includes preparations regarding the upcoming DOY-review tooling. Instead I will focus on adding unreferenced entries to the year pages Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
It looks like Toddst1 has jumped the gun somewhat. Only three people seem to have been involved in the discussion that decided on this major change to WP:DAYS, reversing the previous policy. I have now added my vote and I would hope you, @Rms125a@hotmail.com and @Mufka would also make your views felt. Deb (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
2 months with no objections, is hardly jumping any gun. Toddst1 (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Phew, thanks @Deb. I thought I had a heart attack reading that warning. I'll put in my twocents in the discussion and reverse @Todd's rev's. All this has cost me half the evening by the way :( Mill 1 (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────None of this was a license to edit war and revert my edits. Restoring your edit is WP:Edit Warring Please self-revert. Toddst1 (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Toddst1, I think you are out of line. Deb (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Deb is incorrect and violating proper WP:ADMINCOND in numerous ways. Toddst1 (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert and @Mufka, can I trouble you to quickly add your Support/Oppose to this proposal? The discussion is by now posted on VPP and RSN and the project could really use your input.Mill 1 (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Guideline changed per community consensus[edit]

Hi Mill, You probably didn't notice but Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year had a discussion as a result of the discussion above and now requires the same level of sourcing as the rest of wikipedia. Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Style. It would be helpful if you added sources as you grow the WPDOY pages, but at least stop adding unsourced entries please. Toddst1 (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Toddst1, Thanks for the heads up. I have been following the discussion you mentioned for quite some time and contributed to it myself. After the additions of the last two Oppose-votes I assumed the discussion was of the table. 14 Support-votes as opposed to 11 Oppose-votes is hardly what I would consider community consensus. So you can image my surprise when you informed me of your victory. I am a bit baffled really. It is going to be really interesting watching the project members enforcing the new level of sourcing regarding new entries on WP:DOY. Deb; what do you make of all of this? Is this consensus?? Mill 1 (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't think of it as a victory. An RFC was filed, commented on and the community has chosen to evolve the way things work. Deb doesn't have any more of a say here than any other community member. If you have a problem with the RFC closure, I suppose, WP:ANI might be the place to discuss it. If not, please get on board with the change and keep up the good work. Toddst1 (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
You're correct, Mill 1, there's no consensus, but let Todd carry on with the job of "enforcing" this. I fear it won't leave him much time for anything else. Deb (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Practicalities regarding changed guideline[edit]

Look Toddst1 and Deb, we're all trying to lift the quality of this encyclopedia here, DOY in particular. I get annoyed as well when DOY-entries link to crappy bio's. Hell, I even launched a failed initiative to get rid of entries that link to unreferenced and unnotable articles.
I believe that with my additions and corrections I am improving WP:DOY (and WP:YEARS). I also believe in determining the practical feasibility first before initiating any change. I think that's the issue here: in practice if an editor wants to add an entry he/she will not first studie the DOY guidelines before commencing. He/she will open the editor and will make the edit using existing entries as an example.
Right now only a tiny fraction of the entries are sourced. So what's going to happen is that editors will keep adding unsourced entries. The only way to prevent this is to:

  1. Add inline citations to the 125,000+ existing entries in DOY
  2. Add warnings to the top of each DOY-page (even section?) that entries need to be sourced.

I'd say: good luck mobilizing the project members help executing those mammoth tasks. Until then I fear that Deb is correct in stating that it will take all Toddst1's time to revert edits and warn editors. It may well be impossible to enforce the changed guideline; the backlog of added unsources entries is already growing. In time such entries will only be reverted incidently (and thus inconsistenly) or the guideline will be changed back.
In the meantime I think it is regretable that (new) editors are forced into compliance (and confused): the future may proof that all the extra work adding inline citation to entries was vacuous and could have been used better to further enrich Wikipedia.
Because of all of this I have decided, with regret, to suspend my DOY-project until further notice. Luckily I got to year 1651 before 'consensus was reached'. For now I will focus my attention on other parts of Wikipedia.
Mill 1 (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree. I'm also concerned about the recentism and Western-centric bias that will affect these pages as a result of the change. Deb (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
and what about the extra citations maintenance? References to dead weblinks for instance will have to be corrected twice. Has anyone thought this through at all?
Deb: not giving up/in.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Mill 1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Executive producers[edit]

Per {{infobox film}}, we don't credit executive producers in the infobox, but if the producer is notable, he can be added in the article prose. I frequently do this with Roger Corman, for example. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip NinjaRobotPirate! Can't believe that up to a few moments ago Clayton Townsend did not have a bio by the way.. Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Bert Röling) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Bert Röling, Mill 1!

Wikipedia editor Semmendinger just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice job, article looks great!

To reply, leave a comment on Semmendinger's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Citing sources[edit]

These edits [2] [3] [4] appear to be quite WP:POINTy.

I'm sure you know how to add a useful reference - what you've added is clearly not helping anyone and adding short citations without any details of the sources is useless and in this context is clearly disruptive. Stop now. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Referencing DOY a good idea (?)[edit]

Dear Mill 1. I would appreciate if you give your opinion on this discussion. I saw you make a couple of points in the earlier discussion on referencing the DOY. Thanks :)--Rochelimit (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Mill, I realize we don't see eye-to-eye on the direct sourcing requirements for DOY entries, and I've spent a fair amount of time in the past few days going through the births section of a couple of DOY pages, finding problems and cleaning them up. (Take a look at my recent edit history.) What I've found is that more than 75% of the births listed on DOY pages for living people who are not athletes have no reliable sources for the DOB in the biographical article that is supposed to have them. In many of the cases where there are refs in the articles for the DOB, it's an WP:IMDBREF.
Before you comment at Village Pump, could you take a look at any DOY page that I haven't recently cleaned up and start at the bottom of the birth section and look at the linked articles for the first dozen or so non-athletes to see if there are reliable sources there?
You're clearly an exemplary contributor and I think if you see the mess that the "bluelink is good enough for DOY pages" practice has created, I think you might change your opinion. Please consider doing this. It would only take a few minutes. Toddst1 (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
***Reaction*** Mill 1 (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited High Road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Heok Hui Tan[edit]

Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. Mill 1, thanks for creating Heok Hui Tan!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. More evidence is needed to support notability. Do they have any species named after them/or have authored, for example? See WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC for the criteria we use.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Nick Moyes (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Yang Jun-Xing) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Yang Jun-Xing, Mill 1!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please do not cite Wikipedia, or Wikispeices, per WP:CIRCULAR. They are not reliable sources. Also, please review WP:SCHOLAR: merely naming species, or being linked from other Wikipedia articles, may not be sufficient to demonstrate notability.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Donald R. Davis (entomologist) moved to draftspace[edit]

Purely having described a number (even a large number) of species is not a criterion that demonstrates notability in Wikipedia meaning of the term. If you think this person fulfills WP:ACADEMIC (or WP:GNG), you will have to show that they have had a strong, generally recognized impact in the field. The current sources do not demonstrate that. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donald R. Davis (entomologist) (September 9)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. Kpgjhpjm 06:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Mill 1! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Kpgjhpjm 06:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Donald R. Davis (entomologist)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Donald R. Davis (entomologist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://entomology.si.edu/StaffPages/DavisD.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kpgjhpjm 06:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

As I've already said at Talk:Donald R. Davis (entomologist), I've blanked this and listed it at WP:CP. This clumsy personal note is instead of the customary large and invasive template. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: Thank you for your feedack. I will await the results of the investigation. Mill 1 (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)