Jump to content

User talk:Maile66

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mark Miller (talk | contribs) at 07:09, 19 October 2016 (Taking a "break" but will be back). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please post new message Subject in this box, and click New Section button

Template:Archive box collapsible

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
There when you are needed. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen () 17:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

KAVEBEAR Thanks for letting me know.— Maile (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
My patience is beginning to end on this point.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

Why did that go away? Was there a TfD I couldn't find? Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Glad to be of help. I enjoyed reading the article. — Maile (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]