|
2007-2009
2010 |
The article List of cemeteries in Montana has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Given that this page is purely navigational, and all but two links on the page are red-links, it currently serves no purpose.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Itsfini (
talk) 18:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Mark Cline. I was wondering if you had seen my request for work being done on the Rapala page, and wondered if you could recommend anyone for me to go to. Cheers, User:Shadowblade08 ( talk) 18:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 | Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hi Mike, a while ago you attempted to move your talk page to "User talk:Mike Cline archive 2020", which is an invalid title because it doesn't contain a slash, and was recently deleted for this reason. You also moved many of your talk subpages along with your talk page. I have moved everything back and archived your old talk at User talk:Mike Cline/Archive 11. Hope you don't mind. Graham 87 05:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I noticed that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing is listed as inactive. I have been working on updating the Fly tying page and wondered whether there should be a WikiProject Fly Fishing. Do you have any thoughts? -- Talk to G Moore 19:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Closure of move request for East Asians in the United Kingdom
Hi there, Mike Cline. I see you were the closer of the move request by George Ho of East Asians in the United Kingdom → East and Southeast Asians in the United Kingdom.
The two articles " East Asians in the United Kingdom" and " Southeast Asians in the United Kingdom" are fairly underdeveloped articles. I was actually about to merge the two into a new article on " British East and Southeast Asians." This latter term is one that has become much more used, in the art scene especially, but in recent days during the pandemic in response to anti-BESEA racism. It is an alternative term that is giving stronger collective strength to two overlapping umbrella groups (which does not exist with British Asian, mainly associated with South Asian heritage). Also, as opposed to the term " East and Southeast Asians in the United Kingdom," the term " British East and Southeast Asians" pushes against a view of "foreigners in the UK."
As you were the original closer, I thought I would consult you on the matter before creating a new and potentially contentious British East and Southeast Asians.-- Caorongjin ( talk) 19:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ Caorongjin: Mike's last activity was November 2020. I would suggest creating a draft at either a subpage of your userspace or a "Draft:" page. George Ho ( talk) 19:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Yanceys, Wyoming for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yanceys, Wyoming, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yanceys, Wyoming until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
|
A token of thanks
Hi Mike Cline! I've
nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk ~~~~~
|
 |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. / Johan (WMF)
18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Why did this edit get reverted? I have scoured every single page I can for clarification on the revert, and nothing has turned up on it. And why was it done using rollback? It seems to violate this guideline, and it does not look like any act of vandalism was peformed on the edits surrounding it. — CVValue ( talk) 01:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- It appears that you deleted a source reference. Why?
Mike Cline (
talk) 01:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you check the source difference, I think you can see that I moved the reference tag over into the table, instead of just straight up deleting the reference. Besides, it looks a little odd to have a hanging reference that occupies an entire line in the article, and it can not be a reference for the image in that section. You could also just append it to the end of a paragraph to make it implied that it contains all info above listed. — CVValue ( talk) 15:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed it. I just missed the source move. A better edit summary than "This doesn't make sense" would have helped. Mike Cline ( talk) 15:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Following up close of Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination#Requested move 18 December 2021
Shortly after your good faith close of Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination#Requested move 18 December 2021 Omegatron at Special:Diff/1065826060 rather than coming to yourself as closer. I've been shadowing the article over Christmas while its been open, its quite strain to get dragged back again, and I've had little hesitation at raising Omegatron's conduct at ANI per Special:Diff/1065902354. I am aware there is a high possibility Omegatron may, as is there right, deign to answer the ANI but will resume the pursuit of a page move when the ANI has died down. There may indeed be support for renaming that page. When the syndrome emerged in Spring 2021 there was much good work to quantify the risk versus risk and concerns about vaccine hesitancy. The page developed rapidly based mostly on early reports, activity lessening after a month or two and not really reflecting the latest science. The move request of 18 December 2021 generated some update activity on the article page and also some conversation on the talk page about the scope of the article as well as the primary name. I have some evidence the current name was likely chosen due to its use by EMA in as the problem emerged, for example in [1]. To be clear, I am opined any name should preferably be compliant with the like of WHO, EMA, and patient information leaflet usage, e.g. [2]. The term WHO, EMA etc promotes is thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), in the context of post vaccination in relation to COVID/adenovirus; including in references from latest and recent 2022 documents: [3], [4], and [5](updated January 2022) pointing to [6] & [7] (PDF). Also [8] point to [9] & [10]. In summary, plus with points from discussions, I have created Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome following adenovirus-based vaccination as a candidate target page should there be a WP:MR or another WP:RM - I confess I am expectant any such discussion would be difficult to result in consensus and waste a lot of RL time unless mediated so my current preference is to stay as is rather than change. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 00:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Noted Mike Cline ( talk) 00:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for shepherding WT:AARV. I have just read through all of WT:Move review/Archive 2012, and note that you deserve a lot of credit for the success of MRV. It's a bit sad that so many of the others are no longer active. It's my hope that AARV will work, and that it will bring in a cultural change, even if the change is little more than the perception of the admin corps by the community. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- You’re not that same as User:John Cline, are you. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, been Mike Cline my entire life.
Mike Cline (
talk) 14:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- If the same question was asked to me, I'd have to say yes, been John Cline my entire life. However, they did call me Cline for the first two or three years in the U.S. Army. Nice to meet you Mike, best regards.-- John Cline ( talk) 23:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, been Mike Cline my entire life.
Mike Cline (
talk) 14:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I don't have a problem with the outcome of this RM, but I was wondering if you could add a brief summary to your closure statement, rather than just "Moved X"? It was a relatively long discussion and a lot of different policies and rationales were invoked on each side, so I think it would be useful for posterity to know what policy reasoning you found the consensus to be based on. Thanks. Colin M ( talk) 15:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you closed these two discussions ( Talk:The_Client_(Star_Wars)#Requested_move_7_March_2022 and Talk:The_Armorer#Requested_move_7_March_2022) without leaving a closer's note. Can you expand on your reasoning behind the close? I felt that the oppose side was lacking in policy-based arguments. Axem Titanium ( talk) 23:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- “I felt that the oppose side was lacking in policy-based arguments.” Sensi contrarium. No further explanation required or forthcoming. Mike Cline ( talk) 11:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Move review for The Armorer
An editor has asked for a Move review of The Armorer. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Axem Titanium ( talk) 20:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Deletion review for Template:Movenotice
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Movenotice. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 15:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Kia ora Mike - just for clarity, wouldn't "no clear consensus" at this stage of the process be better suited for a relist than closing the move request altogether? Turnagra ( talk) 19:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Based on the discussion to-date it was my opinion that a relist would just delay a no consensus close.
Mike Cline (
talk) 22:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Setting aside that no consensus isn't really the same as a consensus to not move, I don't think that's a fair assumption to make - move requests can often have a consensus emerge following a relist, especially if the relevant wikiprojects are notified as part of that. Turnagra ( talk) 09:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
- Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
- Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Good evening Mike. I saw you recently closed the Dunkin' RM as no consensus. I know there was a lot of opposition to the proposal based on the idea that Dunkin' Donuts remains the common name, but I don't believe they demonstrated this assertion at all; the only English-language reliable sources provided in the discussion came from the nominator. I was hoping you could revisit the close or explain it further. Calidum 03:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Mike, it looks like you might have answered Calidum privately
over e-mail, but FWIW I would also be interested in hearing your answer to this inquiry if you don't mind sharing it on-wiki.
Colin M (
talk) 16:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, Mike has shared the message he sent to Calidum with me, also over e-mail. I appreciate this, but am disappointed that here (and in other cases above - e.g. Irina Walker, The Armorer) you are declining to explain your closure on-wiki. If editors understand why consensus went a certain way, they can use that information in the future to be better-informed RM participants/closers. Hence, I think having these discussions publicly and transparently would be the best thing for the health of the project. Colin M ( talk) 17:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Noted. You should start closing a few RMs every week to share your expertise. Mike Cline ( talk) 18:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, it appears that when closing this RM, you moved the article but not the talk page. Thanks! 162 etc. ( talk) 18:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Good catch thanks - fixed Mike Cline ( talk) 05:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd like you to reconsider this closing: [11]. I just posted this: [12] and there has not been any time for responses. With my position the count is three support and one oppose. Thank you. Moon Joon ( talk) 11:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- It’s not a vote. Work on the article not the title. Mike Cline ( talk) 12:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a little puzzled by the closure as well, both in form and in tone. The discussion was active with new participants arriving and there was no immediate need to close. I definitely don't see any consensus for move protection.
Mackensen
(talk) 13:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Looking at the history of
Hornby Railways, it doesn't look like that page has ever been moved since its creation in 2004. If you think there's a problem with excessive RM discussions being opened, move protection is going to do nothing to solve that.
Colin M (
talk) 17:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- @
Caorongjin: I'm going to ping you, even though this is your talk page, because you haven't answered in five days. In that time you have posted more than twenty comments, including four here on your talk page. You gave me twenty-two minutes after my first post at Hornby before you slammed the door in my face, and twenty-one minutes after my first post here you seem to have just blown me off. @
Mackensen: and @
Colin M: have also posted here without answer, they may not care, but I'd like to chat. It's the weekend and I'm busy, maybe some AGF next week?
Moon Joon (
talk) 10:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @ Moon Joon: I'm sorry, but why am I being pinged? This is neither my talk page nor have I made any edits to Hornby Railways? — Caorongjin 💬 17:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- @
Caorongjin: I'm going to ping you, even though this is your talk page, because you haven't answered in five days. In that time you have posted more than twenty comments, including four here on your talk page. You gave me twenty-two minutes after my first post at Hornby before you slammed the door in my face, and twenty-one minutes after my first post here you seem to have just blown me off. @
Mackensen: and @
Colin M: have also posted here without answer, they may not care, but I'd like to chat. It's the weekend and I'm busy, maybe some AGF next week?
Moon Joon (
talk) 10:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Looking at the history of
Hornby Railways, it doesn't look like that page has ever been moved since its creation in 2004. If you think there's a problem with excessive RM discussions being opened, move protection is going to do nothing to solve that.
Colin M (
talk) 17:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
You just answered an on-Wikipedia commet by e-mail, which I have problems with. By contacting me personally you exclude all other editors from following the discussion. I am going to post the e-mail you sent me:
"@Moon Joon. I always, as a matter of practice, try and avoid openly revisiting or explaining an RM close. If I’ve made an OBVIOUS mistake (I’ve made a few), changing my decision isn’t unusual. However, all that said, the RM close process/decision is by its very nature tricky. First, one must avoid any semblance of a Supervote!. A Supervote! close is an easy allegation to make in closely contested RMs by either side and difficult to defend. Second, any given RM decision is complicated by the inherent complexity and contradictory nature of the body of title policy, guidelines and MOS. Supporters and Opposers routinely cherry pick and attribute primacy to the policy, guideline, MOS criteria that best suits their position. Finally, the evidence aspect of RM discussions is handicapped by the imprecision of the sheer volume of external evidence—Google searches, NGRAMS, RS-and Non-RS sources—which is routinely cherry-picked or inaccurately portrayed by both supporters and opposers alike.
When I make an RM decision, I’ve typically followed the RM from its inception through backlog so I am familiar with the flow of the discussion. I rarely add much verbiage to explain the detailed rationale as it just becomes fodder to those who might oppose the decision, especially if their specific position/evidence isn’t given the weight they deemed it important.
I’ll close with two thoughts. As much as individual editors feel passionate about an article title, titles in the broad scheme of the Wikipedia world are a bit inconsequential. With our redirect/disambiguation scheme, no article, regardless of title, is unavailable to the reader. Its content, not title that is important. Compare that with the AFD process—it is consequential.
Finally, I’ll share an essay I wrote years ago on the RM process which might give you more insight into the way I think about RMs.
/info/en/?search=User:Mike_Cline/Arguments_to_avoid_in_Requested_Move_discussions
Interestingly enough there are similar sentiments on the RM talk page about the RM backlog. Openly trying to explain every “good faith” decision just invites folks to find fault.
I understand that you are perturbed with the close decision. Supporters/Opposers always are when the decision is contrary to their position. I am not "blowing you off" as this is not a social media site. Back and forth chats are just a waste of time.
Am currently and have been in Florida fishing and will be on the road back to MT next week. Not much time to chat! and I'd much rather spend limited WP doing some real editing.
Mike"
Your answer doesn't address the problem at all, it's just noise. The problem is that you closed an ongoing discussion in only twenty-two minutes. What I posted was/is none of your business, AGF gives me more than twenty-two minutes to participate.
Please don't e-mail me again. Moon Joon ( talk) 15:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to address your e-mail.
- In your first paragraph you say that you won't discuss your actions? You don't think that twenty-two minutes is "an OBVIOUS mistake"? You say that closing is complicated, apparently this one had to be decided immediately? Then you go off on Supervote and N-grams, none of which apply to me personally. I had just gotten there with an outside NPOV.
- Your second paragraph says that you "followed the RM from its inception through backlog so I am familiar with the flow of the discussion". You were aware that I had just arrived in GF and that there were other open posts?
- Your third paragraph you say "individual editors feel passionate about an article title". That does not apply to me. I'm not passionate about the title, again, I had just gotten there with an outside NPOV. Then you say that titles aren't important anyway?
- I don't want to read your essay, I'm not impressed here.
- Again, you don't feel that you should explain your actions because others may question you about them?
You do not "understand that you are perturbed with the close decision" because I'm not. Again,I had just gotten there with an outside NPOV. I'm perturbed with you excluding me with no reason. That discussion was not finished.- Don't you realize that by "chat" I meant an unconfrontational discussion? What is with this social media stuff? Why would you think I care what you're doing on vacation? You belittle me for trying to be polite?
- I came here in good faith to "Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page." as in step one of "Steps to list a new review request" but I don't think I'm getting much co-operation from you. Moon Joon ( talk) 02:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand why you closed this discussion in a haste. Today was the first day in ages that a new editor popped up with a statement, to which I responded. Shouldn't you give time for that person to consider my argument and possibly revise their position? That person was the only one who was opposed to the name change thus far. So I feel that you jumped in prematurely and without providing any reasoning for your decision. I feel that we could have reached consensus if you hadn't cut it short. Interestingly, I see just above on your talk page that someone else felt similarly towards a closure that might have been faster than necessary. EMsmile ( talk) 14:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. I did read your essay. That's all good and you linked to " the world will not end tomorrow" which is where it says "we can afford to take our time when deciding on what is allowed in, and when we open the door." So my point here is that it feels like you rushed it through. EMsmile ( talk) 14:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 Montana floods, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Watershed. 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) 09:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of List of people in Montana history for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people in Montana history until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Category:Bibliographies of explorations has been nominated for deletion
Category:Bibliographies of explorations has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. // Timothy :: talk 10:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The article List of Montana State Representatives has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
The article List of Montana state representatives has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This page is redundant with the lists of representatives/senators on the respective pages of the Montana House and Montana Senate. This page has not been kept well, and provides inaccurate information.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 09:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Yellowstone National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 05:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia users in the United States Mountain West and High Plains will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 14, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, articles, or photographs of our region is encouraged to attend.
If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
|
| Wikimedia US Mountain West |
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 9, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, geography, articles, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. Please see our meeting page for details.
If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to ask about your close here. Since the close is endorsed, that means that the current title has no consensus. As such, it should moved back to the previous stable title of Saffron Terror. Could you do that please? Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 14:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry Capt Jack, not going there as it is not my purview to make an arbitrary titling decision. The RM was specifically for Hindu Terrorism to an unspecified title from a list of options (never a good idea). It was not moved. The MR contested that decision but I found the RM close within guidelines. This is clearly a contentious titling discussion thus the Move protect. FOCUS on the content and let this one lie for a while.
Mike Cline (
talk) 15:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have to agree that some of your wording was surprising! I mean, editors actually "were duly apprehensive that discussions on any given move review process would spiral into a contentious rehash of the pro/con arguments discussed during the RM"? Wouldn't mind having their crystal ball. Have to say though, that it can be a bit vague sometimes, because there are times when editors at MRV are just trying to point out what they think are flaws or weaknesses in the closing statement, but it sounds as if they are rearguing the move request. In any case it does happen a lot. It's not always easy to tell the good faith args vs. the not-so-good faith ones. Thank you, Mike, for your time and trouble!
P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.
put'er there 05:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you haven’t pursued the 2012 archive of the MRV talk page you might find it interesting reading.
- Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2012
- It details the creation of the MRV process. It wasn’t an easy road. Mike Cline ( talk) 08:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have to agree that some of your wording was surprising! I mean, editors actually "were duly apprehensive that discussions on any given move review process would spiral into a contentious rehash of the pro/con arguments discussed during the RM"? Wouldn't mind having their crystal ball. Have to say though, that it can be a bit vague sometimes, because there are times when editors at MRV are just trying to point out what they think are flaws or weaknesses in the closing statement, but it sounds as if they are rearguing the move request. In any case it does happen a lot. It's not always easy to tell the good faith args vs. the not-so-good faith ones. Thank you, Mike, for your time and trouble!
P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.
put'er there 05:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Good read. And thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 | |
| Nine years! |
|---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
|
|
| Wikimedia US Mountain West |
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, August 8, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in articles, history, geography, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. We may try to organize one or more Wiknics. Guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.
If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
|
|
| Wikimedia US Mountain West |
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, November 14, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.
If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.
- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello Mike Cline - A page move was requested for Pseudomonadota to go back to Proteobacteria, and closed on 28-3-2022. Since then other posts have voiced objections to the move. One of the two opposers since changed their mind. Pseudomonadota does not register on nGrams and Google hits gives only 278k for it, Proteobacteria has nearly nine million hits. Could it be looked at again please? Iztwoz ( talk) 22:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
|
|
| Wikimedia US Mountain West |
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 13, 2024, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.
If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
|
2007-2009
2010 |
The article List of cemeteries in Montana has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Given that this page is purely navigational, and all but two links on the page are red-links, it currently serves no purpose.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Itsfini (
talk) 18:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Mark Cline. I was wondering if you had seen my request for work being done on the Rapala page, and wondered if you could recommend anyone for me to go to. Cheers, User:Shadowblade08 ( talk) 18:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hi Mike, a while ago you attempted to move your talk page to "User talk:Mike Cline archive 2020", which is an invalid title because it doesn't contain a slash, and was recently deleted for this reason. You also moved many of your talk subpages along with your talk page. I have moved everything back and archived your old talk at User talk:Mike Cline/Archive 11. Hope you don't mind. Graham 87 05:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I noticed that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing is listed as inactive. I have been working on updating the Fly tying page and wondered whether there should be a WikiProject Fly Fishing. Do you have any thoughts? -- Talk to G Moore 19:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Closure of move request for East Asians in the United Kingdom
Hi there, Mike Cline. I see you were the closer of the move request by George Ho of East Asians in the United Kingdom → East and Southeast Asians in the United Kingdom.
The two articles " East Asians in the United Kingdom" and " Southeast Asians in the United Kingdom" are fairly underdeveloped articles. I was actually about to merge the two into a new article on " British East and Southeast Asians." This latter term is one that has become much more used, in the art scene especially, but in recent days during the pandemic in response to anti-BESEA racism. It is an alternative term that is giving stronger collective strength to two overlapping umbrella groups (which does not exist with British Asian, mainly associated with South Asian heritage). Also, as opposed to the term " East and Southeast Asians in the United Kingdom," the term " British East and Southeast Asians" pushes against a view of "foreigners in the UK."
As you were the original closer, I thought I would consult you on the matter before creating a new and potentially contentious British East and Southeast Asians.-- Caorongjin ( talk) 19:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ Caorongjin: Mike's last activity was November 2020. I would suggest creating a draft at either a subpage of your userspace or a "Draft:" page. George Ho ( talk) 19:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Yanceys, Wyoming for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yanceys, Wyoming, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yanceys, Wyoming until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
|
|
A token of thanks
Hi Mike Cline! I've
nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk ~~~~~
|
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. / Johan (WMF)
18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Why did this edit get reverted? I have scoured every single page I can for clarification on the revert, and nothing has turned up on it. And why was it done using rollback? It seems to violate this guideline, and it does not look like any act of vandalism was peformed on the edits surrounding it. — CVValue ( talk) 01:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- It appears that you deleted a source reference. Why?
Mike Cline (
talk) 01:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you check the source difference, I think you can see that I moved the reference tag over into the table, instead of just straight up deleting the reference. Besides, it looks a little odd to have a hanging reference that occupies an entire line in the article, and it can not be a reference for the image in that section. You could also just append it to the end of a paragraph to make it implied that it contains all info above listed. — CVValue ( talk) 15:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed it. I just missed the source move. A better edit summary than "This doesn't make sense" would have helped. Mike Cline ( talk) 15:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Following up close of Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination#Requested move 18 December 2021
Shortly after your good faith close of Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination#Requested move 18 December 2021 Omegatron at Special:Diff/1065826060 rather than coming to yourself as closer. I've been shadowing the article over Christmas while its been open, its quite strain to get dragged back again, and I've had little hesitation at raising Omegatron's conduct at ANI per Special:Diff/1065902354. I am aware there is a high possibility Omegatron may, as is there right, deign to answer the ANI but will resume the pursuit of a page move when the ANI has died down. There may indeed be support for renaming that page. When the syndrome emerged in Spring 2021 there was much good work to quantify the risk versus risk and concerns about vaccine hesitancy. The page developed rapidly based mostly on early reports, activity lessening after a month or two and not really reflecting the latest science. The move request of 18 December 2021 generated some update activity on the article page and also some conversation on the talk page about the scope of the article as well as the primary name. I have some evidence the current name was likely chosen due to its use by EMA in as the problem emerged, for example in [1]. To be clear, I am opined any name should preferably be compliant with the like of WHO, EMA, and patient information leaflet usage, e.g. [2]. The term WHO, EMA etc promotes is thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), in the context of post vaccination in relation to COVID/adenovirus; including in references from latest and recent 2022 documents: [3], [4], and [5](updated January 2022) pointing to [6] & [7] (PDF). Also [8] point to [9] & [10]. In summary, plus with points from discussions, I have created Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome following adenovirus-based vaccination as a candidate target page should there be a WP:MR or another WP:RM - I confess I am expectant any such discussion would be difficult to result in consensus and waste a lot of RL time unless mediated so my current preference is to stay as is rather than change. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 00:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Noted Mike Cline ( talk) 00:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for shepherding WT:AARV. I have just read through all of WT:Move review/Archive 2012, and note that you deserve a lot of credit for the success of MRV. It's a bit sad that so many of the others are no longer active. It's my hope that AARV will work, and that it will bring in a cultural change, even if the change is little more than the perception of the admin corps by the community. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- You’re not that same as User:John Cline, are you. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, been Mike Cline my entire life.
Mike Cline (
talk) 14:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- If the same question was asked to me, I'd have to say yes, been John Cline my entire life. However, they did call me Cline for the first two or three years in the U.S. Army. Nice to meet you Mike, best regards.-- John Cline ( talk) 23:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, been Mike Cline my entire life.
Mike Cline (
talk) 14:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I don't have a problem with the outcome of this RM, but I was wondering if you could add a brief summary to your closure statement, rather than just "Moved X"? It was a relatively long discussion and a lot of different policies and rationales were invoked on each side, so I think it would be useful for posterity to know what policy reasoning you found the consensus to be based on. Thanks. Colin M ( talk) 15:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you closed these two discussions ( Talk:The_Client_(Star_Wars)#Requested_move_7_March_2022 and Talk:The_Armorer#Requested_move_7_March_2022) without leaving a closer's note. Can you expand on your reasoning behind the close? I felt that the oppose side was lacking in policy-based arguments. Axem Titanium ( talk) 23:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- “I felt that the oppose side was lacking in policy-based arguments.” Sensi contrarium. No further explanation required or forthcoming. Mike Cline ( talk) 11:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Move review for The Armorer
An editor has asked for a Move review of The Armorer. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Axem Titanium ( talk) 20:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Deletion review for Template:Movenotice
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Movenotice. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 15:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Kia ora Mike - just for clarity, wouldn't "no clear consensus" at this stage of the process be better suited for a relist than closing the move request altogether? Turnagra ( talk) 19:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Based on the discussion to-date it was my opinion that a relist would just delay a no consensus close.
Mike Cline (
talk) 22:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Setting aside that no consensus isn't really the same as a consensus to not move, I don't think that's a fair assumption to make - move requests can often have a consensus emerge following a relist, especially if the relevant wikiprojects are notified as part of that. Turnagra ( talk) 09:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
- Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
- Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Good evening Mike. I saw you recently closed the Dunkin' RM as no consensus. I know there was a lot of opposition to the proposal based on the idea that Dunkin' Donuts remains the common name, but I don't believe they demonstrated this assertion at all; the only English-language reliable sources provided in the discussion came from the nominator. I was hoping you could revisit the close or explain it further. Calidum 03:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Mike, it looks like you might have answered Calidum privately
over e-mail, but FWIW I would also be interested in hearing your answer to this inquiry if you don't mind sharing it on-wiki.
Colin M (
talk) 16:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, Mike has shared the message he sent to Calidum with me, also over e-mail. I appreciate this, but am disappointed that here (and in other cases above - e.g. Irina Walker, The Armorer) you are declining to explain your closure on-wiki. If editors understand why consensus went a certain way, they can use that information in the future to be better-informed RM participants/closers. Hence, I think having these discussions publicly and transparently would be the best thing for the health of the project. Colin M ( talk) 17:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Noted. You should start closing a few RMs every week to share your expertise. Mike Cline ( talk) 18:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, it appears that when closing this RM, you moved the article but not the talk page. Thanks! 162 etc. ( talk) 18:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Good catch thanks - fixed Mike Cline ( talk) 05:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd like you to reconsider this closing: [11]. I just posted this: [12] and there has not been any time for responses. With my position the count is three support and one oppose. Thank you. Moon Joon ( talk) 11:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- It’s not a vote. Work on the article not the title. Mike Cline ( talk) 12:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a little puzzled by the closure as well, both in form and in tone. The discussion was active with new participants arriving and there was no immediate need to close. I definitely don't see any consensus for move protection.
Mackensen
(talk) 13:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Looking at the history of
Hornby Railways, it doesn't look like that page has ever been moved since its creation in 2004. If you think there's a problem with excessive RM discussions being opened, move protection is going to do nothing to solve that.
Colin M (
talk) 17:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- @
Caorongjin: I'm going to ping you, even though this is your talk page, because you haven't answered in five days. In that time you have posted more than twenty comments, including four here on your talk page. You gave me twenty-two minutes after my first post at Hornby before you slammed the door in my face, and twenty-one minutes after my first post here you seem to have just blown me off. @
Mackensen: and @
Colin M: have also posted here without answer, they may not care, but I'd like to chat. It's the weekend and I'm busy, maybe some AGF next week?
Moon Joon (
talk) 10:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @ Moon Joon: I'm sorry, but why am I being pinged? This is neither my talk page nor have I made any edits to Hornby Railways? — Caorongjin 💬 17:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- @
Caorongjin: I'm going to ping you, even though this is your talk page, because you haven't answered in five days. In that time you have posted more than twenty comments, including four here on your talk page. You gave me twenty-two minutes after my first post at Hornby before you slammed the door in my face, and twenty-one minutes after my first post here you seem to have just blown me off. @
Mackensen: and @
Colin M: have also posted here without answer, they may not care, but I'd like to chat. It's the weekend and I'm busy, maybe some AGF next week?
Moon Joon (
talk) 10:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Looking at the history of
Hornby Railways, it doesn't look like that page has ever been moved since its creation in 2004. If you think there's a problem with excessive RM discussions being opened, move protection is going to do nothing to solve that.
Colin M (
talk) 17:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
You just answered an on-Wikipedia commet by e-mail, which I have problems with. By contacting me personally you exclude all other editors from following the discussion. I am going to post the e-mail you sent me:
"@Moon Joon. I always, as a matter of practice, try and avoid openly revisiting or explaining an RM close. If I’ve made an OBVIOUS mistake (I’ve made a few), changing my decision isn’t unusual. However, all that said, the RM close process/decision is by its very nature tricky. First, one must avoid any semblance of a Supervote!. A Supervote! close is an easy allegation to make in closely contested RMs by either side and difficult to defend. Second, any given RM decision is complicated by the inherent complexity and contradictory nature of the body of title policy, guidelines and MOS. Supporters and Opposers routinely cherry pick and attribute primacy to the policy, guideline, MOS criteria that best suits their position. Finally, the evidence aspect of RM discussions is handicapped by the imprecision of the sheer volume of external evidence—Google searches, NGRAMS, RS-and Non-RS sources—which is routinely cherry-picked or inaccurately portrayed by both supporters and opposers alike.
When I make an RM decision, I’ve typically followed the RM from its inception through backlog so I am familiar with the flow of the discussion. I rarely add much verbiage to explain the detailed rationale as it just becomes fodder to those who might oppose the decision, especially if their specific position/evidence isn’t given the weight they deemed it important.
I’ll close with two thoughts. As much as individual editors feel passionate about an article title, titles in the broad scheme of the Wikipedia world are a bit inconsequential. With our redirect/disambiguation scheme, no article, regardless of title, is unavailable to the reader. Its content, not title that is important. Compare that with the AFD process—it is consequential.
Finally, I’ll share an essay I wrote years ago on the RM process which might give you more insight into the way I think about RMs.
/info/en/?search=User:Mike_Cline/Arguments_to_avoid_in_Requested_Move_discussions
Interestingly enough there are similar sentiments on the RM talk page about the RM backlog. Openly trying to explain every “good faith” decision just invites folks to find fault.
I understand that you are perturbed with the close decision. Supporters/Opposers always are when the decision is contrary to their position. I am not "blowing you off" as this is not a social media site. Back and forth chats are just a waste of time.
Am currently and have been in Florida fishing and will be on the road back to MT next week. Not much time to chat! and I'd much rather spend limited WP doing some real editing.
Mike"
Your answer doesn't address the problem at all, it's just noise. The problem is that you closed an ongoing discussion in only twenty-two minutes. What I posted was/is none of your business, AGF gives me more than twenty-two minutes to participate.
Please don't e-mail me again. Moon Joon ( talk) 15:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to address your e-mail.
- In your first paragraph you say that you won't discuss your actions? You don't think that twenty-two minutes is "an OBVIOUS mistake"? You say that closing is complicated, apparently this one had to be decided immediately? Then you go off on Supervote and N-grams, none of which apply to me personally. I had just gotten there with an outside NPOV.
- Your second paragraph says that you "followed the RM from its inception through backlog so I am familiar with the flow of the discussion". You were aware that I had just arrived in GF and that there were other open posts?
- Your third paragraph you say "individual editors feel passionate about an article title". That does not apply to me. I'm not passionate about the title, again, I had just gotten there with an outside NPOV. Then you say that titles aren't important anyway?
- I don't want to read your essay, I'm not impressed here.
- Again, you don't feel that you should explain your actions because others may question you about them?
You do not "understand that you are perturbed with the close decision" because I'm not. Again,I had just gotten there with an outside NPOV. I'm perturbed with you excluding me with no reason. That discussion was not finished.- Don't you realize that by "chat" I meant an unconfrontational discussion? What is with this social media stuff? Why would you think I care what you're doing on vacation? You belittle me for trying to be polite?
- I came here in good faith to "Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page." as in step one of "Steps to list a new review request" but I don't think I'm getting much co-operation from you. Moon Joon ( talk) 02:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand why you closed this discussion in a haste. Today was the first day in ages that a new editor popped up with a statement, to which I responded. Shouldn't you give time for that person to consider my argument and possibly revise their position? That person was the only one who was opposed to the name change thus far. So I feel that you jumped in prematurely and without providing any reasoning for your decision. I feel that we could have reached consensus if you hadn't cut it short. Interestingly, I see just above on your talk page that someone else felt similarly towards a closure that might have been faster than necessary. EMsmile ( talk) 14:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. I did read your essay. That's all good and you linked to " the world will not end tomorrow" which is where it says "we can afford to take our time when deciding on what is allowed in, and when we open the door." So my point here is that it feels like you rushed it through. EMsmile ( talk) 14:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 Montana floods, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Watershed. 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) 09:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of List of people in Montana history for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people in Montana history until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Category:Bibliographies of explorations has been nominated for deletion
Category:Bibliographies of explorations has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. // Timothy :: talk 10:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The article List of Montana State Representatives has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
The article List of Montana state representatives has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This page is redundant with the lists of representatives/senators on the respective pages of the Montana House and Montana Senate. This page has not been kept well, and provides inaccurate information.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 09:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Yellowstone National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 05:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
|
|
Wikipedia users in the United States Mountain West and High Plains will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 14, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, articles, or photographs of our region is encouraged to attend.
If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
|
|
| Wikimedia US Mountain West |
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 9, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, geography, articles, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. Please see our meeting page for details.
If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to ask about your close here. Since the close is endorsed, that means that the current title has no consensus. As such, it should moved back to the previous stable title of Saffron Terror. Could you do that please? Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 14:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry Capt Jack, not going there as it is not my purview to make an arbitrary titling decision. The RM was specifically for Hindu Terrorism to an unspecified title from a list of options (never a good idea). It was not moved. The MR contested that decision but I found the RM close within guidelines. This is clearly a contentious titling discussion thus the Move protect. FOCUS on the content and let this one lie for a while.
Mike Cline (
talk) 15:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have to agree that some of your wording was surprising! I mean, editors actually "were duly apprehensive that discussions on any given move review process would spiral into a contentious rehash of the pro/con arguments discussed during the RM"? Wouldn't mind having their crystal ball. Have to say though, that it can be a bit vague sometimes, because there are times when editors at MRV are just trying to point out what they think are flaws or weaknesses in the closing statement, but it sounds as if they are rearguing the move request. In any case it does happen a lot. It's not always easy to tell the good faith args vs. the not-so-good faith ones. Thank you, Mike, for your time and trouble!
P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.
put'er there 05:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you haven’t pursued the 2012 archive of the MRV talk page you might find it interesting reading.
- Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2012
- It details the creation of the MRV process. It wasn’t an easy road. Mike Cline ( talk) 08:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have to agree that some of your wording was surprising! I mean, editors actually "were duly apprehensive that discussions on any given move review process would spiral into a contentious rehash of the pro/con arguments discussed during the RM"? Wouldn't mind having their crystal ball. Have to say though, that it can be a bit vague sometimes, because there are times when editors at MRV are just trying to point out what they think are flaws or weaknesses in the closing statement, but it sounds as if they are rearguing the move request. In any case it does happen a lot. It's not always easy to tell the good faith args vs. the not-so-good faith ones. Thank you, Mike, for your time and trouble!
P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.
put'er there 05:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Good read. And thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
|
| |
| Nine years! |
|---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
|
|
| Wikimedia US Mountain West |
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, August 8, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in articles, history, geography, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. We may try to organize one or more Wiknics. Guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.
If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
|
|
| Wikimedia US Mountain West |
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, November 14, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.
If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.
- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello Mike Cline - A page move was requested for Pseudomonadota to go back to Proteobacteria, and closed on 28-3-2022. Since then other posts have voiced objections to the move. One of the two opposers since changed their mind. Pseudomonadota does not register on nGrams and Google hits gives only 278k for it, Proteobacteria has nearly nine million hits. Could it be looked at again please? Iztwoz ( talk) 22:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
|
|
| Wikimedia US Mountain West |
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 13, 2024, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.
If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)