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 21:59, 27 September 2016 (→Liliuokalani: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

USER Maile Maile TALK Maile KUDOS VPump New pages AfD debates AfD Stats XToolsPages GUC Special:LinkSearch Quarry

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

Template:Archive box collapsible

Shortcuts
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]

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 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) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW

... it's gratifying to see the fairly high uptake on the "quote your sources" experiment, don't you think? But it will take quite some time to see the results -- the real proof will be if there are fewer pulls from prep, Qs, or Main Page. I've personally found the discipline of identifying and pasting in the precise supporting text very helpful in sharpening hooks. EEng 05:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. — Maile (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ʻAnaseini Takipō

Hello, do you know if the content on the 213–215 jstor article review is mentioned on the original Queen Sālote of Tonga: The Story of an Era 1900–1965?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I don't have access to Google books, at least not on the one you have linked. It just shows me the cover of the book. What's in Jstor - p 213 is background on the author and how she came to write the book, p 214 is about Sālote becoming regent, and p 215 mentions the graphics in the book. — Maile (talk) 16:40, 23 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)

Thanks!

Thanks for the information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdmjiv (talk • contribs) 13:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liliuokalani

Hello. Are you familiar with the history of Liliuokalani? Could you possibly write a professional introduction for the article we currently have? I am asking you since I trust you can make a neutral summary of the topic. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KAVEBEAR I'm very familiar with her history. I'll be glad to have a look at this. Give me a day or so. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As will I. I thought we were all volunteers here? I did not understand that we could ask for professional help of others in a manner that shows such distrust of the editors also currently contributing to the article? I thought the lede section was a summary of the article's content itself. I thought we worked together, I did not know we were allowed to actually seek someone to contribute to an article for our own perceived level of that persons knowledge on the subject but only as having an interest in the general subject or previous interest in the article. All of which I know Maile to have, but I do wish to point out that the request was for a professional to write the lede and I do object to that request. He and others may also contribute.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahahahahahahaha ("professional help"). You (both of you) flatter me by calling me professional help. KAVEBEAR and I have diddled with each other's articles for literally years. As far back as I can remember, in fact. Please don't take this so personally. Just a couple of days ago I was helping him with some Tonga articles - and he didn't ask...I butted in. Before you posted, I was just thinking how nice it is to have your expertise on Lilioukalani. We're all in this together. Let it go, please. — Maile (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! As I said...perception of the editor, not mine (Although I still hold your opinion in very high regard). You have absolutely every reason to be approached by KB. It was just that...and you must admit, it was not the best wording, timing or....inclusion to come to you when the article had not been touched in months until my interest and then suddenly KB needs assistance with a "second pair: of eyes when in fact...he is asking for a third pair. I can easily let it go to work with KB. I cannot let it go that he approached yet another admin when I began editing an article and that his approach was not as within our guidelines as it might be, but I also accept that I am not his favorite editor. What I do accept and acknowledge is that, when we do work together, the article improves far more than I believe it would with either of us working on it alone. Seriously. While we have battled heartily in the past, hopefully that part is long past.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Miller and KAVEBEAR: we all have editorial moments that blow our feathers off. Then we get over it and move on. I've had more than one article in a review where a really seasoned editor came along with the best intentions and made what they believed to be constructive edits - and in the process got the facts wrong. Been there. Just for clarification, as you both may have guessed from my online name, I have more than just a passing interest in all things Hawaii, and Liliuokalani specifically. I always thought Liliuokalani and her related articles should be a Featured Topic. That means the main article has to be FA, all lists have to be FL, and the other related articles have to be GA or FA. It's a huge project. I haven't previously tackled the Liliuokalani article because I think to do it justice requires a great deal of research and work. Making a list of all potential sourcing on the talk page is a really good start. I would love to be involved in this, maybe even helping edit the lead (or not, depending). I don't want to get in anybody's way. But I think together we can accomplish Featured Article status on this one. That is what everybody has in mind, isn't it? — Maile (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would love your help as it is a truly hard thing to accomplish and is the direction I was hoping to achieve. I know KB has a number of GA article under his belt. There are different routes to FA, and it doesn't have to go through GA first. Ford Island for instance. TParis helped to really streamline things by knowing the proper route.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2016-39

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

  • If your wiki wants numerical sorting in categories you can request it after a community decision. See how to request it. [1]
  • When you edit text and mention a new username they are notified if you add your signature. Before this only happened under certain conditions. [2]
  • Users are notified if they are mentioned in a section where you add your own signature even if you edit more than one section. Before, users were not notified if you edited more than one section in one edit. [3]

Problems

Changes this week

  • There will be no new MediaWiki version this week. [6]

Meetings

Future changes

  • Abandoned tools on Tool Labs could be taken over by other developers. There is a new discussion on Meta about this. It will be discussed until 12 October and then voted on. [7]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you won't mind...

... picking up another easy QPQ: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Clio_(Hendrik_Goltzius). EEng 05:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like somebody else already did a review. On future nominations, let's please just let the normal process happen on the standard DYK pages. I don't want to set a precedent that my talk page is a way to get around the log jam that is DYK (and it is a jammed process...seriously bogged down). Good luck with the AFD on this one. — Maile (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with throwing a friend a softball. (The AfD is nonsense and ready for snow close.) Thanks. EEng 14:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maile66&oldid=741499686"