Jump to content

User talk:Maile66/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

For your attention

As the person who proposed the original Gibraltarpedia restrictions, could you please take a look at my suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know‎#Proposed minor wording change to Gibraltarpedia restrictions and indicate whether or not you agree? By the way, please don't take it as a dig at you, I think this is one of those benefit of hindsight things - it's always the case that one finds better forms of words after the fact... Prioryman (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Davy Crockett

The Biography Barnstar
For your edits in improving the Davy Crockett, I am presenting this barnstar. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks! — Maile (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got a mention

Hi Maile, I've mentioned you indirectly in the second-to-last para of a draft I've written here. Please let me know if you're not OK with this. Prioryman (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. Thanks for letting me know. And good luck with this. — Maile (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Awards

See those award tables I said aren't very popular amongst some editors, but are key to understanding Murphy's notability.. well, I imagine if the information found here http://www.audiemurphy.com/decorations.htm was used to expand those tables from being simple images and names of awards to including these dates and details, it would go a lot further. Not sure of the copyvio risk here.. but I gather their source is official enough (they give their sources in a box above the heading) and would be required for Wiki. I don't think the Criteria or even Presented by is vital, but the dates and place/reason he earned them is very good value as it relates directly with his actions. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 16:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll ruminate on your advice and see what I can do. While not the reason I separated the filmography and awards into separate articles, it does help focus on what's left on the main page to clean it up. — Maile (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm a tad worried about the spilt-off articles, personally. Whilst it makes readability easier, it means taking away bulk chunks of material and having to leave only a summary style paragraph under the link. I'm not sure how that will hold under the FA criteria to "neglect no major fact", as Murphy's first and foremost notability lies in his many awards, and then is his resulting film career.. without those he would just be a another veteran without ample recognition or notability to warrant a Wiki page. Having never reviewed FA I don't know how they deal with articles that only contain summaries of key notability factors. It is possible that the article may not be able to advance beyond GA unless the content was merged back to the main page.. but I only suspect that, I can't say for sure. Might be worth asking an experienced FA reviewer if splitting out those sections went too far for FA standards. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 17:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Good points. I'll deal with that a little later down the line. Right now, I want to get the whole of the subject matter in good order. Once it's all in decent shape, I'll ask around. However, it is not workable size-wise with everything in one article. Editing was a nightmare for me, not only navigation between working on one section and making sure it also showed up correctly in the Notes section, but just editing with that size caused notable delays between what I typed and what showed up on the page. If I had that problem, other editors would also. — Maile (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, don't know.. can't admit to having had any issues myself, but it can vary depending on browser/connection setup, and large pages can be awkward to edit if they are a mess to begin with. If you're finding delays between saving and it showing, that sounds like a caching issue.. there is an option in Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance to add a "Purge" option in a dropdown next to the Search box.. that will refresh the page instantly should override any cached version with the latest edit. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 17:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I already have the purge option and use it frequently. — Maile (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Possibly, though her page does have 119 refs to Murphy's 33.. suggesting there is need for a lot more sourcing to satisfy the criteria and still have splits. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 18:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps more predictable is this. I personally didn't use that source because I get tired of being zapped by all the zealots on the issue. Have no idea how the FA crew feels about that, since the Judy Garland article doesn't seem to use that one. — Maile (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Yup, imdb is like Wiki though, anyone can contribute, only it is moderated and edits have to pass inspection. I prefer book refs over imdb, on filmographies.. hence why I used the Faber book for all of Murphy's Westerns and filled in the rest with imdb as a temporary stop-gap.. though in the case of articles on a single film, it shouldn't hurt to reference imdb, but it should be supported. It's often hard to find a reliable book for an actor that details their entire acting career, if they're not a top star.. sometimes imdb is the best available thing. What with Garland being highly famous, there are a ton of books on her acting, unlike Murphy, where there may only be a couple. i.e. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Films-Career-Audie-Murphy/dp/0944019226

I note that "Citing Imdb" is an essay, so no one can hold you to it.. not even Randy-backed zealots. I guess there's been no settled consensus in using imdb as a source. It seems hypocritical that people would reject imdb as unreliable, yet still expect people to treat Wiki as the Holy Grail, given the issues we have here, which imdb avoids through moderation. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 19:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  • There's another stickler that surely would come up on anything going to WP's main page. There's a big debate out there about who is the most decorated soldier. And there are fans on all sides. And maybe it depends on how you split hair on the wording. Douglas McArthur easily had a lot more - something like 83 decorations. But McArthur wasn't a foot soldier. There's Matt Urban, who is apparently in the Guinness Book of Records, and had a bio with that title. . Better get this one right, or not mention the designation at all. — Maile (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I would argue that the term "most decorated soldier" isn't about the number of awards per se.. it's about the credit, as those were the words printed on Life cover. I'm aware there were other highly decorated men, perhaps moreso, but I don't think this is a controversial claim, more a cultural recognition, or tribute to his service, it's not like Murphy coined the claim himself. Fandom has no part on Wiki, otherwise members of all religions would be claiming theirs is the "true" God and no other can claim it, and all hell would break loose. The wording should simply recognise him as "one of the most decorated" soldiers, or possibly the most decorated in his class, if there is evidence to support that.. I don't know where he fit into the military organisation compared with the other claims to "most decorated". I think, with carefully constructed prose, and decent refs, there shouldn't be any real issues. Only idiots debate over who was "best" as fans, when all they're really doing is hating on all but their favourite soldier and making a mockery of the duty they did for their country. There should be an official record for each, which provides details of their awards, that can be totalled objectively, so I'm not sure why there should be need for lengthy debate at all. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 20:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ma®©usBritish{chat} 20:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have it already but here is a link to some of the official citations for Murphy's awards: http://militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=209 138.162.0.44 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

etal

Way to go on Obama's affirmation! Thanks for the Military Times link. Just wanted to comment on a couple of things, one and above, and one that has been mentioned over at the original peer review:

  • audiemurphy.com is a feast of information. I'm assuming it's as accurate as it can be. Whether or not someone will complain about it being a source for so much in the article, well, that's the way the mop flops. Sometimes, it's the only place to find sources on Audie.
  • SAMC - the Audie Murphy clubs. I intend to eventually expand on those clubs. I think you probably mentioned it originally. It's how much time do I have to devote to it. I think there are probably SAMCs at most military bases in this country. One thing I did notice on the website for the Ft. Stewart SAMC is that it's the top 2% of NCOs. That's impressive, and if all the SAMCs have the same standard, it's probably the best tribute to Audie's service. — Maile (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I've seen the photo somewhere else in the last few days. Don't remember where. Like the book, but it's not available in my library. — Maile (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The section titled "Bibliographical history of To Hell and Back" probably needs to be placed higher in the page, within the main subject area, as its current location breaks MOS:FOOTERS order, which would probably not be acceptable in any FA-review. Perhaps last, before "See also", or better, as a sub-section of "Autobiography To Hell and Back" so that it gives it inherent context as a lead-in. It's current location makes it feel unimportant or trivial, given that they aren't referenced. I'm not sure if a list of every reprint and translation will live up to FA scrutiny, given WP:NOTCATALOG guidelines, but better placement may improve its chances in line with MOS:WORKS. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 20:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I've moved it up. If FA doesn't like it being in the article, it can be sacrificed without taking away from the article itself. For the time being, I'll leave it in. — Maile (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

On da house! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. For whatever reason. Chug a lug, chug a lug! — Maile (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Audie Murphy

I've begun the GA review for Audie Murphy; you can find some suggestions on the review page. Thanks for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me get to your list over there for improvement. I'm hoping this article can eventually be elevated to FA. — Maile (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
This shit is exactly why I hate going to FA.. you put your heart and soul into creating or developing an article, and some anon douche tries to be funny with it. I wish Wiki would just ban IP editing, the "free to edit" philosophy is bollocks, and wastes more time, bandwidth and space than anything.. as well as that it gives leniency to IPs automatically, whilst so many genuine editors are branded and blocked by gungho admins for far less. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 12:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I saw where you put a notice on the IP's talk page. I don't suppose you noticed where the offending IP is based? Interesting. That's where there is an active SAMC. Somehow, I don't think this one was a school kid messing around. (Comanche gets a lot of school-based IP vandalism). I completely agree that editing on Wikipedia should be by registered users only. Eliminate the IP and the redlink unregistered users. I believe the British have a quaint little term: "berk". Not all the berks are unregistered. Some registered berks have no purpose of existence but to disrupt with minutia they're willing to take to the mat. Small people with small minds. The phenomenon you're referring to is the singular reason I stopped submitting DYKs of my own. I respect the DYK process and believe in it. But once something is on the main page, it's going to be slapped by berks, either the silly ones, or the sad ones who need attention. And I have curtailed creating new articles, because of something similar. On a more happy note, I caught Gunpoint on Youtube yesterday. Don't remember if I saw it when it was released in 1966, but it's the type of thing that would have most likely ended up only at drive-in movies. The genre was somewhat out of place for its time. Yet, it was a decent movie and Audie's performance was quite good. — Maile (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I looked at the location when I saw another IP (New York) had reverted it. Have to admit, I was surprised that a southern state person would attack a relatively local hero, given that there are still pro-Confederate resentments in that area, and people are quick to defend their fighting men, in my experience. All I can surmise is that the person behind that IP was raised by his ma and surrogate pa in a trailer park, and lacks a real education. :) "Berk" is not a commonly used term here, I thought it was a polite old-school insult for idiot, but looking at thefreedictionary.com, it claims it's "shortened from Berkeley or Berkshire Hunt rhyming slang for c*nt". Oh dear, haha! I haven't seen Gunpoint, but I have found a set of all 26 eps. of Whispering Smith on R0 DVDs, plus a bonus feature on Murphy's military career, on ebay, which I may have to get one day. My only concern is that each episode is only 30 mins long.. you wouldn't think a good plot could develop and resolve well in so short a time. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 16:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Good Article Barnstar
For your contributions to bring Audie Murphy to Good Article status. I particularly appreciate the swiftness and thoughtfulness of your responses to my concerns. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hooray! Dance of joy! — Maile (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Anna Hyatt Huntington/Works of Anne Hyatt Huntington for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anna Hyatt Huntington/Works of Anne Hyatt Huntington is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Hyatt Huntington/Works of Anne Hyatt Huntington until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A kitten in exchange for introducing me.

Thank you for sending me a list of tutorials so I could get started on Wikipedia. I wish there was a mentor barnstar. Thank you.

XndrK (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and good luck with editing. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, can I use your userbox?

Can I use your time userbox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XndrK (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. What do you mean by time userbox? — Maile (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Maile66; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Audie Murphy

In response to your comments at MILHIST I've run through much of the article again, if only to maintain the standard of English and identify any concerns regarding the latest additions. I felt the overall standard had slipped a little, in terms of the text, and have tried to deal with that.. some of the prose was childishly and/or poorly written. Have tried to copy-edit as best I can, and hope my standard of English will suffice.. I won't claim to be great in using English, but I do recognise shoddy grammar and such. Have also acted in response to talk page comments. Keep going, don't feel let down by sub-par contribs. Just build on and around them, with suitable edit summaries that leave little room for argument. Regards, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 12:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Don't worry about your standard of English - I can always later do some tweaks and standardize whatever needs it. I've felt so discouraged and somewhat alone in this, to do all the work I did and have someone come along and destroy it, no matter how well intentioned. AGF, the editor in question is probably really wanting to contribute to this. The reality is that this same editor had contributed a lot before I got involved, and much of that had to be gutted to get it up to GA. I haven't checked word for word, but they might have just reinstated what I gutted for improvement. I turn on my computer every morning and - bada-bing!, bada-boom! - there's a whole slew of edits from this editor, every single day. This editor reminds me of someone else who got permanently blocked around the same time this one began editing. Different subject matter somewhat, but the patterns are almost cookie-cutter identical. I guess there are similar scenarios happening all over Wikipedia. We were all hawks-out-of-the-nest at one point on Wikipedia. And we make mistakes and move on. But, geez-louise, this editor just keeps coming and coming and coming like a machine. I haven't had time to get into the books from the library, but of what I'd perused, old (gutted) phrasing jumped out at me word for word. And who knows who put that old stuff there. I feel at a disadvantage not having been career military myself. And I certainly feel much more comfortable working on the filmography. Nobody is bothering what I wrote over there, and the subject matter is one where I could more easily identify any good-faith misfires. I'm actually having fun at that. — Maile (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Complete filmographies of dead actors don't seem to get more than the odd tweak now and then once they are done. I merged 3 articles into one to form the John Wayne filmography last October using a split tables design for WAI purposes. I had expected a whole lot of fuss over it, yet have gotten none, and it gets at least 500 views a day average, which suits me fine. I really need to get it referenced better though. I haven't compared older edits with the newer ones on Murphy's page, but if there is a strong indication that they are subtly reverting the wording and making it appear as good faith, do produce some unquestionable diffs.. I won't hesitate to come down on such an unscrupulous practice. I'm sure if there is enough of it evident, an admin might warn them for the behaviour, thus freeing you from more worry. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your msg

Hey Maile,

Saw your redacted message on my user page--how frustrating! I've had trouble finding much time to edit this week, but will be glad to pitch in with that situation when things calm down in the Khazar household. (Little Miss Khazar is on her fourth ear infection in ten weeks, argh.) It looks like other users are pitching in too, but I'll be watching, and feel free to keep me posted if the situation continues to be a problem. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I really like your sign-your-posts cat, btw. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The cat is on SineBot - I just fell in love with it. — Maile (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Understandably. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Contact

Will you mind dropping me an email via Special:EmailUser/MarcusBritish, rather than having to activate your email options, before making any more edits to the Murphy article, please? Then I'll get back to you via email. Thanks! Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Maile66. You have new messages at MarcusBritish's talk page.
Message added 00:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

See last 2 comments. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 00:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :)

Hey there: Many thanks for explaining the DYK check installer. I did as you suggested and it worked (woohoo!). Most helpful for the future :) Also, I added to the Feynman piece, so it should now be over the official threshold. Thanks again! Girona7 (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow - terrific. Success! — Maile (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from J. Lindsay Embrey. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cindy(need help?) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yahwehsaves

For some reason, a search is coming up empty at WP:ANI for the discussion in March, do you know which archive it's in? - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, got it (WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive790) - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Good, I was just looking for you. — Maile (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Klonoa

I just created a DYI page for Klonoa. But Don't know what should I do next? NewFranco (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Posted my response on the template. — Maile (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
But he created on the May 21st instead of April 28th 99.229.41.79 (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/N. Viswanathan

I've made a small modification to the hook. Would you mind having another look? —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. — Maile (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot :) —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Maile66. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Outta My Head (Leona Lewis song).
Message added 22:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — AARON • TALK 22:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


Rothley Temple

I've lengthened it from 8,308 bytes ((1,631 when I started few days ago) to 11,726 bytes; so hopefully that should do the trick. :)

Best. Rushton2010 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It passed. Good work. — Maile (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK Sue Sarafian Jehl

Thank you for your honest commentary regarding Sarafian Jehl. I'm fine with ALT2. I changed the article in order to align it with ALT2. Let me know at the DYK page. Cheers! Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I"ve replied on the DYK template. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Resolved photo issues. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Honey Creek (Texas) and Honey Creek (Mason County, Texas)

The reason for the redirects in the hatnotes on these two articles is so that the links don't show up as disambiguation links that need to be fixed (per WP:INTDABLINK). -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 11:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I reverted myself on those two pages, to your edits. — Maile (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you know nominations/Lucius Minicius Natalis Quadronius Verus

Hi Maile66! Thank you for your council at the DYK page. I have followed your guidance and expanded the article to 1835 characters. Best. Way2veers 08:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you did good. The length is OK now. — Maile (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Recorded Texas Historic Landmark

The Recorded Texas Historic Landmark designation is usually not given to people, towns or counties even though they have received a historical marker. On the marker brief in the Texas Historical Atlas, there is a "Designations" line that verifies if the marker is a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark, Historic Texas Cemetery, etc. -Regards Nv8200p talk 16:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for making the correction, and thanks for the helpful advice. — Maile (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for help

If you will look at the article Thank God for Mississippi, you will find Texas mentioned. If you believe the mention to be WP:RS, I agree that nothing needs to be done. But it definitely involves Texas. Student7 (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't put your notice on the talk page of WPTexas. You stuck it on the list of participants, which is the inappropriate place for a talk message. Please review the Goals at WP Texas. Putting the word "Texas" in one place in one sentence in an article about Mississippi does not meet the goals for WP Texas. And who are you agreeing with that nothing needs to be done? That didn't come from me. All I said is that you were more likely to get help at WikiProject United States, and that I posted your request there. I don't know what you're talking about. — Maile (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi! Well I think I forgot to link to the article from which the hook was picked. Her filmography article was created today. Please, talkback [[Template:Did you know nominations/Priyanka Chopra filmography|here]. Thanks.—Prashant 14:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback on the DYK review. Thanks.—Prashant 03:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


Harv ref

Thank you very much for taking your time and energy into teaching me this stuff. I'm still rather confused...I created the page...now what? Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got it! :) Wow!! This is very helpful! Thank you so much. I'm going to start to use it for my new article...Walter M. Geddes. Seems like a lot of mistakes there. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I just looked at the Geddes page. If you have the .js page set up, it should show you the red links. — Maile (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Maile66,

I'm making a new article in my sandbox and I have a question about the Balakian ref. He published two different books in one year (2009), how should I have them cited in the article? Right now I have it as "Balakian" and "Balakian1". I thought you'd might know the answer to this. Thanks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You're still talking about Harv refs, right? If I understand how the sfn template "thinks", it matches the last name and the year. So, I believe you ought to be OK if you have the second one listed as Balakian1 in the bibliography and the sfn template also saying Balakian1. The sfn will think it's a totally different name and point to it. Let me know if that doesn't work, and maybe we can figure something out. But it reads to me like you will be OK with that. — Maile (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind Maile, I found that answer. I just learned that if you have more than 1 work in a year, it goes like this...2009a/2009b etc. etc. It's good to know. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'll remember this. — Maile (talk)

Armenian genocide DYK

Actually, the history shows that it was moved to main space on July 16. SL93 (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, that was a page rename. SL93 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
OK. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK talk page

Are you saying that myself or someone else is being pointy? It is best to not speak in riddles. SL93 (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm not used to jokes on Wikipedia, but we need more of it. SL93 (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Audie Murphy A-class review

Congratulations on the Audie Murphy article being promoted to A-class standard! Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

My thanks to you and everyone at WPMH who helped me do this. Next step is FAC, as soon as I figure out how I should go about that. — Maile (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to say......

Hi Maile66, thanks for clarifying about the bizarre history on the DYK nom for Account of Corsica. I thought it best to note it before any "flyby" reviewer slapped it with a spurious "way too old to qualify". SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC) PS: I'm really not a pointy person - that's only something I inadvertently manage to occasionally convey whilst meticulously utilising a verbose, loquacious grandiloquence in preference to articulating with a sensible degree of eloquence!

  • Don't worry about it. I took it with the humor you meant it, possibly referring to a comment I recently made on DYK Talk that was meant at humor. I figured the reason you brought it up in the first place on the nom was because someone would slap it with the age issue. Which is the same reason I posted what I did. Thanks for posting here. — Maile (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK

The reviewer did say that it was similar to the other film, but only because of one scene. I have fixed the hook and also fixed it in the article. I don't understand why scenes would need to be similar. It is an evil warlock ghost scarecrow film. SL93 (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Maile66. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 13:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000(talk) 13:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Northamerica1000's talk page. Message added by Northamerica1000(talk) 13:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC).

Another pet topic

Since you enjoyed Dog surfing, check out Tsim Tung Brother Cream, another pet-related article I worked on a while ago. Another fun, lighter topic! Northamerica1000(talk) 13:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This was so much fun to read! Thanks for sharing. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; it's a neat topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hank Williams article

Thanks for the advice, I'll try that thing. I've been aware of the erros in the references, but since the article is long and I've been lately short of time, I didn't correct them. Right now taking it to feature was not at the top of my mind, but it sure is not a bad idea either. I think that I should also replace some online referencing with bibliography and expand some details in the future.--GDuwenTell me! 16:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


NRHP warehouse

I agree with you. I set it up the way that I had it because the original infobox was for the NRHP warehouse, and also because my original intention was to create an article about something from the city where I lived most of my life. When I said that I was done participating in DYK, I meant just myself nominating articles. I can still review articles and promote them to the prep areas, but I will not go through the nomination process for my own started/expanded articles. I hate it when reviewers try to force their beliefs on a nominated article and I will speak up if I see it being done with anyone else's nominations. I noticed that the reviewer of my DYK nomination is working on an article about the warehouse itself. So, not only did they change what I wanted, but they also took away my purpose from me. SL93 (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It might interest you to know that I have not nominated an article of mine for about a year, for the exact same reason you are going to cease doing that on yours. And in fact, what really ticked me off was that once it hits the main page, a lot of people feel free to start making idiotic changes to the article, and they're willing to take you to the mat over incredibly stupid stuff. I still enjoy doing reviews once in a while. But otherwise...no. I just checked what you are talking about with the NRHP warehouse article. This is somewhat bizarre. In different circumstances, it might be OK to enhance it this way. But to have it happen in the middle of a DYK nomination is...bizarre. I don't have a lot of historical interaction with this editor. I just know his name from This signpost stuff. If you haven't read this, his WP user name comes from his company. Bamkin is his real name. — Maile (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Victuallers copied some of my content from the original article to the new article without the required attribution per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. He used to be a part of Wikimedia UK, even with the controversy and is an admin, but he didn't even know about how to copy within Wikipedia? SL93 (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
He also removed some of my content from the reworked article on the company itself to his new article. SL93 (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The events of last year are becoming more clear. The reality is that Wikipedia is full of big fat egos who do what they want and usually get away with it. I think we may be witnessing one of those right now. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Cromwell's Soldiers' Pocket Bible

Take a look now to see if the red links still show up. If so, I'll remove the second author for the references that seems to be the trouble. Let me know one way or the other here on your Talk Page. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Maile66 - I took out all the second authors in the references and all seems to be working correctly. Let me know if there is a problem, otherwise IF I don't hear from you, I'll assume it is working correctly now.--Doug Coldwell (talk)
I have workmen in my house right now, so I'm a little distracted. But please see how I just redid the Adler one. You should have all those authors. It's how you format the SFN. User Harvard citation documentation for reference. You can put all the other authors back, just format the footnote itself for all the extra editors. McConnell under the bibliography still shows you have no inline citation for it. — Maile (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

NRHP ref numbers

I noticed your last edit at National Register of Historic Places listings in Travis County, Texas. Do you know about Elkman's tool for NRHP articles? It will generate a full info box, including the ref number. Try this, it should help. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this is great! I did not know about it. Thanks for showing it to me - big time saver. — Maile (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
And then again, it doesn't work for everything. It's kind of hit and miss. Some searches, i.e. for historic districts, come up blank. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
These are likely new listings. Elkman's tool uses the NRIS database, which is updated every year or two, but should otherwise be "complete" (though the NRHP is sometimes inconsistent on maybe 1% of its entries). There are ways to get info on new listings, including a new listings announcement every week or two, and maybe something like a "Featured new listing" announcement, and announcements from the state organizations (SHPOs), though I use these fairly infrequently. E-mail requests to the NRHP also sometimes work, though in one case for a 1.5 year old listing, they told me they just didn't have it. Ask a question at WT:NRHP for help on the non-Elkman stuff. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Monte Carlo (vodka)

Hello, I received your message, thank you; please explain why this page must be deleted and what we did wrong. This is very important to have this information on Wikipedia. Monte Carlo vodka a new brand for US and a lot of consumers looking for additional information, so please just let me know what it must be fix in order to be published, thanks. Best Regard, Sam Levi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.76.18 (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK

So are you surprised that I haven't come running back to DYK? When I say something, generally I mean it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello to you, too. I haven't been over there to notice. — Maile (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestion of citation debugging tool

Maile, thanks for suggesting in the DYK discussion of IQ classification that I install the specialized tool for debugging Harvnb references. By working with it, I empirically learned what each error message means, and by rereading the Harvnb template documentation, I discovered some limitations in that template that I was also able to work around. I'll keep the tool installed as I surf around Wikipedia and fix other articles. Thanks for sharing the knowledge. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. Since I installed that tool, I'm amazed at how many articles have edit issues with HarvRef. — Maile (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


Charles Smith Bird

OK I have worked out what the prolem is. {{DNB}} is setup with ref=harv set by default. This is so that short citations can be linked to it without the parameter being explicity set. In this case the inline citations are not short ones so there is no linkage. As this usually passes silently I see no problem, for the good that having ref=harv set by default. As a matter of interest what does you addition show for the standard template {{citation}} that sets ref=harv by default? -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to follow up with you, because I've never used the DNB template and unsure of its applications, and not sure how relevant my comments would have been to you. On the Citation template, the first example shows "Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFTurner1851." Down the page, examples show similar errors. The last time these errors show up is twice under "IDs must be unique". "Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMontesHalterman2008b." Hope this helps you. — Maile (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There are dozens of templates similar to {{DNB}} and {{Cite DNB}} the one with the largest use is probably {{EB1911}}/{{cite EB1911}}. Both of them are for large works that contain 10,000 or articles that are now in the public domain because their copyright has expired. In many cases there are articles available on Wikisource, so to link to one all one has to do is add:

  • {{Cite DNB|wstitle=Johnson, Samuel}}
  • {{Cite EB1911|wstitle=Johnson, Samuel}}

and the template fills out the details (including links to the articles on Wikisource)

  • "Johnson, Samuel" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
  • Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Johnson, Samuel" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Other parameters are listed on the temples' talk pages. Templates such as {{DNB}} do the same thing but add an attribution prescript:

This is needed to meet WP:PLAGARISM requirements if text is copied from the PD source.

If the text is not yet ported to Wikisource then the same template cab be used with title= and url=:

  • {{Cite EB1911|title=Johnson, Samuel |volume=15 |pages=463–471 |url=http://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri15chisrich#page/463/mode/1up}}
  •  Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Johnson, Samuel". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 15 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 463–471.

From the editors point of view when it is ported then all they have to do is remove the url= and change title= wstitle=. For those doing the porting and maintenance the templates produce maintaince categories: (see Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica)

Templates that include PD attribution also set the parameter ref= because articles that incorporate attribution will also need inline citations and those are usually provided through short citations, for example see James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde.

Interestingly, your java script proved useful in spotting an year error in a short citation of an earlier version of James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde (which I fixed today) -- PBS (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Good luck

Greetings Maile. I just wanted to stop and so goodbye and thanks for all the help and support in the past. I wish there were a lot more like you here and less of some of the other clowns. I would have sent this by Email but yours isn't enabled. I intend for that last post to the WPUS template discussion to be my last (well besides this one). Good luck. Kumioko (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Saengerfest

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Saengerfest you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RainCity471 -- RainCity471 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Change Article Lead

Maille:

As you know I have been rather involved for the past couple of months on the Audie Murphy Texas Legislative Medal of Honor issue. I had been planning to leave my thoughts on the issue of "Leave As Is" or "Change" and went to do so this evening and the subject was locked. Not sure why that occurred but can it be unlocked so as to give you a perspective on this issue. Advise. Thanks!Audiesdad (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we're supposed to re-open an RFC that has been closed. One more vote to "Change" won't alter the outcome, but I think you should have a forum for your perspective. I set up a new section right below that just for you. Click on the section - change the section heading if you like, to whatever you think is appropriate - and please state your views on the subject. I was wondering where you went - long time no hear!— Maile (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Where Did the Section Go?

Maille:I saw this afternnon/evening where you opened a section for me to post my views. I do appreciate it and look forward to being able to voice my perspective. I stepped away for a moment to get my notes and when I returned my computer had locked up and crashed. It took a while to get back on and it appears the section was closed. Can you re-open it once more? I would appreciate it and will post the comments I have from my perspective in the morning if you are able to open it. Thanks!Audiesdad (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it because you didn't respond, and I thought you changed your mind. Please feel free to add your own section and give your perspective on the issue. — Maile (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


A brownie for you!

Hi, I just want to say I'm genuinely sorry about my botched GA review. When I started, I knew I was going away this saturday (have to be at the airport for 4 in the morning), but what I didn't think of was I have to start getting ready now... It's a school trip to a music festival for 5 days.

I think the work you've done on Saengerfest is great, and its wonderful you've expanded the article and put it up for GA. WP's coverage on music is generally not as good as other areas (particularly science and millitary history). GA is just a standard; even if the article doesn't get the green blob, you've still expanded it with high quality, referenced content. Your work has improved another article and makes readers realise "well, WP isn't as bad as we think".

Best of luck with the nomination, and I hope we meet again in the future. Best wishes, RainCity471 (whack!) 19:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been good to have your insight on the nomination as far as you were able to take it. Thank you for your time.— Maile (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It's ok, and thank you for being very quick to respond. I'm sorry I didn't see the instructions at WT:GAN for putting the article back in the review queue and that you had to do it. (I have some time now but as I don't know how much editing I can do, I decided to resign when I still had time.) Best wishes, RainCity471 (whack!) 14:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Great catch of "American Council of Learned Societies" = just what my copies from the book says! Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Glad I could be of help. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for sharing the rules & regulations of the DYK's with me. Looking for better reviewing in the near future, Ethically Yours. EhthicallyYours! 16:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you just check the review at Template:Did you know nominations/Freies Volk? Thank you. EhthicallyYours! 09:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Tim Yap

Hi, I've added Lost in Yonkers to the article on Tim Yap, so should be okay to put back in the prep area. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! This picture makes me have a sugar craving. — Maile (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Not to complicate the matter, but I did some significant additions to the Turtling (sailing) article after you reviewed it. It doesn't (IMHO) change the DYK, but it does make it a better article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I just checked it. To me, it looks like tightening it up and added sources. Seems fine to me.— Maile (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree, but I didn't want to give you a rude awakening. And I saw your glowing report (thank you), and thought you might find the new section on WingNuts of interest. It highlights the fatal consequences of hubris in sailing — the thought that superior seamanship can save your ass from completely foreseeable risks.
The other issue relates to dinghies and small catamarans ((mdash}} there is the trade off of performance due to having extra weight aloft and extra expense, but turtling is very dangerous. Even Rousmaniere's several analyses notes the existence of flotation, but stops short of recommending that it be required. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Wingnuts wasn't an entire new section, just a paragraph. My basic review was, in my opinion, how all reviews ought to be done - thorough and detailed on what was checked, thereby providing adequate information for the promoter. Everybody has their own review style, and mine has been developed by paying attention to the issues that come up on reviews and on DYK's talk page. What you perceive as "glowing" was because your writing makes it easy for me (and others) to understand the subject at hand. I did find the article, and these recent editions, interesting. — Maile (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Your report was really thorough and well thought out. Your format is to be emulated. You obviously know, understand, and care about the DYK process. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Noodles Hahn jpg on Commons

Hello. I did upload the Commons image but not the Wikipedia one. I have no objections to renaming either of them, but I can't do it myself; I think you have to ask an administrator. - PM800 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


No, I don't. Turtling (sailing) (IMHO) is a much better article with many more sources and a different scope than Capsizing, and they only share an event on the margins. All turtlings involve a capsize, but all capsizes do not need to turn into a turtle (and if they do it can be bad). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. — Maile (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I know you are not the problem. The DYK process (I've done a lot of these) has its own dynamic, and who gets involved can make it. . . . See e.g., Bill Smith (fell runner). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Worth a thousand words. Given that DYK is "staffed" by imperfect human volunteers, some of whom are one-time editors with scant knowledge, I find it curious sometimes as to what gets pulled. Some of it is needed, because all the people in the process miss something they should have caught. But sometimes it leaves me wondering. My opinion on your work speaks for itself on the review template. — Maile (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I was really frustrated. I've written far more articles that could have qualified for DYK, but the hassle factor here is large, and I just let them go. And a DYK is a VERY small reward, other than its nice to have readers look at your product. But its a big risk, where they move the burden of proof and no longer WP: AGF. The "close paraphrasing" issue when it arises is particularly troublesome, as the standard is really amorphous — in the eyes (or mind) of the beholder. Particularly when they start delving into the structure of sentences or paragraphs, and ignore the fact that the words aren't the same, and then they just go off with 'copy vio' hallucinations. With Bill Smith, I had pulled together all (and there were a great many) of the sources, and they had a similar scenario. Running/falling into a pond can only be written so many ways.
A base part of the problem is that Wikipedia is generally bad at recognizing worthwhile contributions. Long on criticism, short on strokes. Barnstars are given out rarely, like its a zero sum game. We have some really great work being done here, and a lot of it goes unrecognized. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I loved your link to wondering. I had to personally intervene and protect the author (leading authority on and inventor) of Pentagram map, who was getting beat up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious

gnomish guidance
Thank you for quality articles such as Sängerfest, for welcoming and guidance, for gnomish service, for example with maps, for helping others in the DYK process, for responding with "swiftness and thoughtfulness", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I am humbled. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

QPQ requirement

Can you give a ruling if a QPQ is required on this:

Thanks --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. QPQ only applies to self-nominated. — Maile (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of my article

Maile - Apparent "somebody" reviewed my DYK nomination Mary Hamilton Swindler of today (12/17/2013) as "Good to Go". I would like to thank them, however can't figure who did the Review. Can you tell who did the Review? Thanks!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you look in the history it was Bine Mai. But, it has to be challenged, and I'm sorry about that. This user did this just to qualify for a QPQ, and it was a "drive by" thing. If you've been following the talk over on DYK talk, this is not a good thing. If I were you, I'd wait for that "thank you". — Maile (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for advice. I'll just wait to see what happens. Something didn't seem right about it (bad "vibrations"), so that's why I came to you. Maybe somebody that is an excellent editor, that has done Reviews on my articles before, might do another review on it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to take this over to the talk page and let some other editor handle it. I don't know that editor, and I really don't want to get into anything with them. But it really needs to be addressed. — Maile (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
O.K.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's see how this plays out. The thing is, even if nothing was said now, no prompter is going to pick this nomination up like it is. And as slow as things are on the nominations page right now, there is time to work through this. Have patience, and it will all work out for you.— Maile (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, Doug, it looks like the review has been done properly now. — Maile (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep! Thanks for advice.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead hook in Prep 1

Hi Maile, I decided I would give some of the articles in the DYK queue/preps a quick flick through this morning. The lead hook in Prep 1 for Angel Guts doesn't seem to have the image included in the article? As I'm not sure if you are around at the moment, I have also stuck a note on WT:DYK - sorry! It was the first one I looked at, so maybe I won't look at any more of them! SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome - glad you were around to change it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sängerfest

Harrias talk 02:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


Practical matters

Relative practical matters
You are great on your understanding of relativity and practical matters. Keep up the good work! Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK formatting credit problem

I believe I was to be given a DYK credit - however apparently there was a coding formatting problem and the DYK credit didn't come out the way it normally does on my Talk page. Can you look into this and contact whoever needs to be notified to correct the Mary Hamilton Swindler DYK credit. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Same thing happened to me (see DYK Sangerfest above). You, me and everybody else for the last two sets, it seems. There's a DYK talk page thread on it: DYK talk page thread.
O.K. I see. I'll just wait to see how it plays out and perhaps it will straighten itself out (sooner or later).--Doug Coldwell (talk)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
You have been doing the majority of the Preps at DYK recently, good work! Matty.007 16:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. — Maile (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Queue up

How could this get back into a queue?

I don't know the procedure, however I believe the problems are solved now and it should go back into a queue (accidently pulled). Thanks for your help. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Please post this on the DYK talk page. I am not familiar with this, especially since it's coded as if it was already in a queue. Only an admin can pull from a queue. Anyway, better if you post on the DYK talk page. — Maile (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Followed your advice. Looks like the problem is now fixed and it is now back in a queue(again) where it should be. Thanks again for advice - sometimes I am just stumped as to what the proper thing to do is. I am in your debt.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Holiday Cheer
Victuallers talkback is wishing Maille Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger


inspired by this - you could do the same

Thank you. — Maile (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Prep

Hi Maile, in Prep 1, you added a non-festive hook, I thought we were trying to get Christmas hooks in (that will go up on the 25 December). Thanks, Matty.007 14:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It was under the special holding area for December 25. If this is an issue, I have no problem with you moving it to the first available post-Christmas prep area. — Maile (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a tenuous link, but it may as well stay there unless there is a more Christmas-y hook. Best, Matty.007 15:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
OK. Gatoclass must have put it in the holding area, because he has a note on the bottom of the nom template that it should blend in with other Christmas hooks. — Maile (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Camouflaged, so to speak. Thanks, Matty.007 15:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I also think he's the one who put Dorle Soria in that holding area. — Maile (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, if it's the best we've got... Matty.007 15:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


Merry Christmas!

Matty.007is wishing you a Merry Christmas (quite possibly a White Christmas.

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!

A smiley lollipop for you

 Hello Maile66, Z22 has given you smiley lollipop, for your alternate DYK hook for the "apple green" taxi. ComputerJA said it was among the most creative on Wikipedia. Well, sometime the thing that started out just for fun might be the best of all! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else smiley lollipop! Enjoy!
Spread the goodness of smiley lollipop by adding {{subst:Blank WikiLove}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks. The fun and pleasure was all mine. — Maile (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Prep

Hi, would you mind having a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Mazurek (cake) and if it's OK promoting to Prep 1 please? I think that the picture is quite good... Thanks, Matty.007 18:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I do declare! You must be reading my mind! I've been offline for a few hours. But I've had my eye on this nomination for days, and when we were having our discussion above, I almost plopped it into Prep 1 then. It's there now. Thanks for reminding me. — Maile (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for moving it. Great minds think alike... Matty.007 21:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

William Cooke

Hi there Maile, and Happy Christmas!

I just happened to notice after I transferred the William Cooke hook to prep 2 from prep 1 that you had done the reverse yesterday, with the edit summary moving non-Christmas hook William Cooke to prep area 1. With respect, I think you may have conflated two separate issues here - the original debate was not about whether or not the hook should be used in a Christmas set, but whether, as a non-Christmas hook, it should be listed in the Christmas section of the nominations page. We have almost always had to resort to a few non-Christmas fillers to fill out the Christmas sets, so I'm sure there will be no objection to that, and since nobody has indicated why this particular hook should not be used as a filler, I am not anticipating any objection on that score either (please let me know if I'm wrong about that). I might add that I only used the hook after another exhaustive search of the nom page turned up no viable alternatives - though I think the search was redundant in any case as IMO the Cooke hook serves the purpose very well. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been a little confusing on that hook. If I erred, it was unintentional. However, it is now in the next queue for today (Christmas). So it looks like this issue has been resolved. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Audie Murphy filmography

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Audie Murphy filmography you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


Review

Could you possibly review this? Template:Did you know nominations/Lungi Dance. Thanks! Ethically (Yours) 13:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If you feel there is an urgent timeline on this, the appropriate procedure is to post your request at WT:DYK, so that any available editor can help you. — Maile (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Maile66. You have new messages at TCMemoire's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TCMemoire (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maile66/Archive_3&oldid=1096967270"