User talk:Maile66
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maile66. |
|
|||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 420 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Template:Archive box collapsible
A cookie for you!
|
Dear Maile,
You earned your cookie with this catch. All the refs were in French so I just AGF'd. Yoninah (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC) |
Congrats on the promotion
I glanced at and meant to review your article, but the coordinators were too fast for me. Please let me know of your next FAC nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award
|
Military history reviewers' award | |
| On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for reviewing a total of 1 Milhist article during the period April to June 2016. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| There when you are needed. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC) |
Extended confirmed protection
Hello, Maile66. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
- Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
- A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 September 2016
- News and notes: Wikipedia Education Program case study published; and a longtime Wikimedian has made his final edit
- In the media: Wikipedia in the news
- Featured content: Three weeks in the land of featured content
- Arbitration report: Arbcom looking for new checkusers and oversight appointees while another case opens
- Traffic report: From Gene Wilder to JonBenét
- Technology report: Category sorting and template parameters
The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Taking a "break" but will be back
Aloha Maile66, I appreciate all the work you keep doing to the Liliuokalani article. You may noticed my momentum dying off after the religious section write up. But I am taking a "break" from major editing for a week or more. Although my definition of a break really means no adding of large amount of new material or large overhaul, you might see me add or correct things or suggest things here and there. I need time to read the sources completely and I have a lot of personal issues I am handling right now. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- KAVEBEAR Thanks for letting me know.— Maile (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Can you take look at Roark et al source on Liliuokalani's article and fix the irregularity?I think sfn only allows four authors but that source has five authors so it is being rendered as Roark et al. Hartmann...Fun fact Roark is my favorite history professor in college. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to know what the basis in Wikipedia guidelines is for removing editors as part of attribution to sources. I would also like to know why KB has been removing and replacing sources instead of reducing the huge amount of redundant citations to multiple pages on a single source, instead of reducing those citations by grouping those pages as suggested. We are not going to remove a reliable source without a consensus. WP:V is clear that once a reliable source is added, it satisfies verification and a consensus is needed to remove it. We have been trying to reduce the number of citations by suggesting citations from the same source be better grouped but KB is against that. Instead he begins removing sources and attribution without a consensus. We need more discussion for such removal and more discussion about condensing citations.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Chill it buddy. This is not even the proper place to dispute this. I was speaking to Maile about the template irregularities not our dispute. This edit happened after your first revert...Speaking about your second revert. Under what guideline do you attribute the editor in Harvard referencing style. Fixico is attributed as an editor in the pre existing source that was added prior to the duplication; editors are not attributed in footnotes if you haven't noticed. I agree we need consensus for removal of sources and I've conceded that point already in my follow up edits but the near wholesale reverting my edits twice in a row (and the retaining of some points you imperiously deemed non controversial) and not even retaining the non controversial point is a gross demonstration of bad faith. How is the alphabetization of F after D controversial for example? How is the addition of two additional authors in the disputed source controversial? The Fixicio point is obviously something you could misunderstand as controversial but it is not if you look into it. We attribute editors in the footnotes when there is no author listed but Fixico in the footnote when there is an article author (Parker) for the section Hawaii, Alaska and Agreement. Please move this discussion to the talk page.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think you should reconsider the manner in which you address editors on Wikipedia. I also think you should consider the fact that this is an administrator's talkpage that you are continuing to try and use to your advantage. The proper place to dispute this is the page to which you bring up the situation. Funny...your break was pretty short.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I apologize in advance Maile for this comment here and the previous comment following his...It's clearly apparent here you are using the admin to your advantage. I spoke about a template issue not our disputes in my initial comment addressed to him. Did I ask Maile for a mediation of our dispute? I did not ask him for an opinion on the edits you revert. Learn to read and stop jumping to assumptions and butt in speaking about yourself. My following response was then fueled by your cluelessness. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- If the issue is one where another editor is involved, I hate to say it but....you are campaigning per WP:DAPE. Just to name one.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- My patience is beginning to end on this point.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I apologize in advance Maile for this comment here and the previous comment following his...It's clearly apparent here you are using the admin to your advantage. I spoke about a template issue not our disputes in my initial comment addressed to him. Did I ask Maile for a mediation of our dispute? I did not ask him for an opinion on the edits you revert. Learn to read and stop jumping to assumptions and butt in speaking about yourself. My following response was then fueled by your cluelessness. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think you should reconsider the manner in which you address editors on Wikipedia. I also think you should consider the fact that this is an administrator's talkpage that you are continuing to try and use to your advantage. The proper place to dispute this is the page to which you bring up the situation. Funny...your break was pretty short.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Chill it buddy. This is not even the proper place to dispute this. I was speaking to Maile about the template irregularities not our dispute. This edit happened after your first revert...Speaking about your second revert. Under what guideline do you attribute the editor in Harvard referencing style. Fixico is attributed as an editor in the pre existing source that was added prior to the duplication; editors are not attributed in footnotes if you haven't noticed. I agree we need consensus for removal of sources and I've conceded that point already in my follow up edits but the near wholesale reverting my edits twice in a row (and the retaining of some points you imperiously deemed non controversial) and not even retaining the non controversial point is a gross demonstration of bad faith. How is the alphabetization of F after D controversial for example? How is the addition of two additional authors in the disputed source controversial? The Fixicio point is obviously something you could misunderstand as controversial but it is not if you look into it. We attribute editors in the footnotes when there is no author listed but Fixico in the footnote when there is an article author (Parker) for the section Hawaii, Alaska and Agreement. Please move this discussion to the talk page.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to know what the basis in Wikipedia guidelines is for removing editors as part of attribution to sources. I would also like to know why KB has been removing and replacing sources instead of reducing the huge amount of redundant citations to multiple pages on a single source, instead of reducing those citations by grouping those pages as suggested. We are not going to remove a reliable source without a consensus. WP:V is clear that once a reliable source is added, it satisfies verification and a consensus is needed to remove it. We have been trying to reduce the number of citations by suggesting citations from the same source be better grouped but KB is against that. Instead he begins removing sources and attribution without a consensus. We need more discussion for such removal and more discussion about condensing citations.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Can you take look at Roark et al source on Liliuokalani's article and fix the irregularity?I think sfn only allows four authors but that source has five authors so it is being rendered as Roark et al. Hartmann...Fun fact Roark is my favorite history professor in college. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- You can show Special:RecentChanges on a page by using
{{Special:RecentChanges}}. You can now use tag filters by using{{Special:RecentChanges/tagfilter=tagname}}. [1] - The notification badge is coloured if you have notifications. When you check the notification the badge will now turn grey on all wikis instead of just the local one. [2]
- Colours used in the Wikimedia wikis' main interface changed slightly. This is to make them easier to see for readers and editors with reduced eyesight. [3]
Changes this week
- Hidden HTML comments will be more visible when you edit with the visual editor.
<!-- You write hidden HTML comments like this. -->[4] 
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 October. It will be on all wikis from 13 October (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 11 October at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topics this week is CREDITS files. The meeting will be on 12 October at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- Language converter syntax will soon no longer work inside external links. Wikitext like
http://-{zh-cn:foo.com; zh-hk:bar.com; zh-tw:baz.com}-must be replaced. You will have to write-{zh-cn: http://foo.com ; zh-hk: http://bar.com ; zh-tw:http://baz.com }-instead. This only affects languages with Language Converter enabled. Examples of such languages are Chinese and Serbian. [5]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
20:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 October 2016
- News and notes: Fundraising, flora and fauna
- Discussion report: Cultivating leadership: Wikimedia Foundation seeks input
- Technology report: Upcoming tech projects for 2017
- Featured content: Variety is the spice of life
- Traffic report: Debates and escapes
- Recent research: A 2011 study resurfaces in a media report
Red link template?
Why did that go away? Was there a TfD I couldn't find? Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jclemens It was deleted per TFD Template:Red link. You are welcome to discuss the closing of the RFD with the closing admin BU Rob13. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! Weird that I didn't see it. The G6 was a bit confusing. You might also want to clean up the documentation for the template as well. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- There is a new newsletter from the Collaboration team at the Wikimedia Foundation. It will have more details about for example Flow and notifications. You can read the first issue.
Problems
- Some users got a warning about Wikipedia's security certificate last week. This was because of a problem GlobalSign had. This has now been fixed. Only a small number of users got the warning. [6]
- Editors couldn't edit semi-protected pages in the Wikipedia app for Android. This has now been fixed in the beta version. [7]
Changes this week
- There will be no new MediaWiki version this week. [8]
Future changes
- The Editing Department are working on a new wikitext editor. It will have tools that are in the visual editor but not in the wikitext editor today. You can read more about this. This is an early plan and things can change. The old wikitext editor will still exist.
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with my first DYK, it has been "promoted". It was nice of you to have confidence in it and I'm tickled that an article I worked on might soon be on the front page. I really appreciate your patience and help. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Glad to be of help. I enjoyed reading the article. — Maile (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)