Jump to content

User talk:Maile66/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016
peace bell

Thank you for an outstanding award! 2016 had a good start for classical music, with a Bach cantata (a day late) and an opera reflecting that we should take nothing to seriuz, - Verdi's wisdom, shown on New Year's Day, also as a tribute to Viva-Verdi. (Click on "bell" for more.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Texas Revolution

Please see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Texas_Revolution#Noobie_Editor_Question_about_deleting_a_Reference_book.

I have removed the wording that is highly non-WP:NPOV from the article and where needed, I have inserted Citation Needed tags regarding the source that quite obviously fails RS (for reasons of being incompetent and historically inaccurate). If you disagree with the edits by myself and Bobwolfe, engage in discussion to seek consensus please. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your quick action. It seems the content in question was added by an IP this month. — Maile (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Not a problem. It looks like they hit a few other Texas-history-related pages that need cleanup for that source as well, unfortunately :( Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Maile. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Alamo defenders – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 4. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Rebecca Tobey:

Can you please nominate this article on DYK as a coauthor?Nvvchar. 02:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Nvvchar This article needs more work before it's ready for DYK, to avoid one of those DYK talk page discussions. I was trying to help, but it became clear that an editor who knows sourcing for the arts is needed. The article mostly covers what she did with her husband, and it isn't clear to me how much of that were her efforts. Also, the prose in spots looked to me too close paraphrasing, so that needs copy editing also. It's a worthy article about a known artist, but I don't have the resources to give it what it needs. I suggest asking for copy edit help at either WP Women or Women in Red. You still have a 6-day window to get this in shape. Good luck. I think you chose a good subject to write about. — Maile (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

About Women

Hi Maile66. I'm an editor of the Italian Wikipedia. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks,--Kenzia (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sorry this slipped through the cracks. Thanks for asking me. — Maile (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your great support Maile66! Grazie,--Kenzia (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

TFA

Precious again, your Runaway Scrape!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing a special request

I see you removed this despite it being pertinent to 21 May. Was this discussed? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I see it got brought forward, that's why I couldn't find it in the queue. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your edit at George Tucker (politician) — I would be most grateful for your comments/support with respect to its FA. nom. Hoppyh (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Added my support to your job well done, Hoppyh — Maile (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Audie Murphy

I just wanted to bring to your attention that you protected this page under 30/500. Could you reduce the protection? That level is only authorized by ArbCom or by the community. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I've changed it to semi-protect. — Maile (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

While you are doing DYK prep sets....

Cow tipping has been languishing for a bit...  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 03:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK icons

Maile, when you pull a hook from prep, please use the icon on the review template: if it's bad enough that it needs to be pulled, it has significant problems that need fixing. The icon indicates that the nomination is ready at that moment for a reviewer—and they aren't ready until they've been fixed. I've updated the icons on a couple of your recent pulls from prep; once the problems have been addressed, the review again icon can be added. (Sometimes, this can take a week or two to get settled; close paraphrasing doesn't always get fixed right off the bat.) Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding: you've been doing some great work at DYK checking preps and queues since you became an admin—please keep it up! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset thank you for the advice. Facepalm Oops! I had no idea I'd been using the incorrect icon. And also thanks for the good words. — Maile (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Good work

I think your attitude towards the DYK process in this Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Hooks that contain part of a source is a very sensible way of conducting things, I apologise if it seemed like I was getting at you with my responses earlier, I feel I may have promoted that message, as it wasn't what I intended. As you say "each reviewer catches errors on instinct of what they're used to noticing" and it is a team effort. That type of post shows you fully deserved your recent mopping (is that the word, it seems like it should be if de-mopping is a thing). I'm always wary of slight changes to wording resulting in reviewers saying the citations don't match the hook and I also know that in many cases the way I'd word things independently is close to the source, especially in cases where the facts/titles/names/etc. aren't really negotiable. It is a fine line and it's good that you and others are there to keep an eye on it. Keep up the good work - Basement12 (T.C) 21:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Basement12 Thank you for this. Yeab, mopping. Admins get a mop and bucket. And I didn't even blink about your responses on the templates, and hope you weren't put on edge about mine. I specifically put that section on WT DYK because I am keenly aware of what it is like to be on the other side when errors are found. It can be daunting, depending on how the message is conveyed. We're all going towards the same end goal with each nomination, so we should look upon it as one hand helping the other. We are all human, and therefore error prone. I believe I've said this before hither and yon, and I'll say it again - I learned a great deal about reviews and team effort from WP:MIL. They really have a good system going as far as the team effort idea. I'm hoping eventually DYK can move more towards the teamwork spirit than the finger-pointing spirit. — Maile (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I wrinkled a bit at 2 in quick succession but it was merely a reflex before I read your reasoning, hence I was worried that I might have offended you in my replies. I think the triple-lock of review, promotion to prep, promotion to queue does a decent job given that most of the articles are just babies and most of the editors little more than that when it comes to reviewing experience. My one thought, not that I wish to put more work on the admins involved who do a lot already, is that in such scenarios I think more of a "this isn't ok, how about..." approach could be used on occasion to lessen the perceived criticism. As you say a move towards more collaboration and less finger-pointing would be welcome - Basement12 (T.C) 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/J. R. Kealoha

Let me know if you can possibly give this a review. I am trying to get it eventually to feature article status as a very short featured articles. Thank you!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR I did a source review for you. Mahalo nui for asking. — Maile (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Left a comment on review page. Let me know if there anything else. Can you also give a support or oppose as well base on A-Class criteria?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! 20:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Reviews

Thanks for scooting this along at the Reynolds and Reynolds page to get a legit GA review (and thanks to @Dharmadhyaksha: and @BlueMoonset:).

I was wondering if I could also bother you to take a look at these two[1][2]. While it's not GA related, it seems to be a similar case where the articles were not actually reviewed. For example, here they said "no improvement since last decline," but the article has never been submitted before. No "last decline" actually exists. CorporateM (Talk) 14:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Please see WT:AFCR. — Maile (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. To be honest I sort of presumed it was an anti-COI thing originally. GAN is just about the only area of Wikipedia where COI badgering is rare and when it happens it is adequately shunned (see "super fast track of new article to GA by paid contributor" for example[3]) I feel much less jaded learning that maybe it was just a new editor. New editors can be tamed, consulted and educated. Bullies on the other hand... Anyways, thanks for helping out! Hopefully the next review will be a fair legitimate review one way or another and maybe someone will mentor the new editor. CorporateM (Talk) 16:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
@CorporateM:, in this particular case, I truly believe it was a good-faith editor who wanted to really help out with the backlog at AFC. But they didn't have enough editing experience to understand what they were looking at, and didn't know the intricate policies scattered around at countless pages. It takes years to learn at all that, and I'm not through learning. But I've been where that editor is - you really want to help out, and you just wing it on instinct rather than policy. As for paid editing, Wikipedia kind of blows smoke out of both sides of its mouth on that one, IMO. On the one hand, they tell us "no paid editing", and on the other hand create a framework where it's OK if you are transparent about it. You should see the kind of stuff that crops up on a daily basis at Speedy Deletions. It's also obvious there that not all people who tag with CSD knows the intricacies of policy (and I'm not sure I know all of the policies on that). — Maile (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested page move

Hi Maile, as an uninvolved administrator, would you be able to move Akiva ben Joseph to Rabbi Akiva? I solicited consensus on the talk page over 2 weeks ago, and the consensus was unanimous. Some editors said I should have formatted the request as a requested move, but it wasn't clear to me how to format that. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done @Yoninah: I also left a message on the article's talk page. This is only my second page move as an Admin, so if something is not what it should be, please let me know. And I'm no more clear than you are on how to make the request. But maybe a request on that talk page for admin help. In any event, it's done. — Maile (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I also removed the RFC tag, per the instructions on doing an RFC. Yoninah (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion Inquiry

Hi,

I just noticed my page Buygoodeals was deleted by you. I made it just because I want to share information about one new thing. Could you please let me know why you think my page buygoodeals is advertising or promotion? I am new to WIKI, please help me to improve. Thanks!

Best regards, WeibinWeibinzha (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I see Redrose64 has already responded to this on your talk page. It was proposed for speedy deletion as advertising. I'm the admin who deleted it. — Maile (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly, I responded at User talk:Velella#Deletion Inquiry - Velella is the user who marked it {{db-spam}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you please let me know how can I retrieve the deleted material for future reference and improvement?Weibinzha (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Please post your request at Requests for undeletion. — Maile (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Reviews

In case you have any interest in chipping in, I'm always scrounging for editors to review draft re-writes of low-quality articles where I have a COI.[4][5] CorporateM (Talk) 14:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

CorporateM I haven't been ignoring you, but I've had other priorities the last couple of weeks, and continue to have my attention mostly directed off-wiki. I glanced at these and see no problems except they are just two of many waiting in line to be reviewed. As difficult as the wait is, such is the case with every review process on Wikipedia. I don't have time to devote to doing the reviews for you, but you are welcome to ask anyone else for assistance. — Maile (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Including omitted 'the' words at DYK

Heh. It took me ages to work out where the addition of 'the' to a DYK hook came from! :-) It was between here and here. I remember reading about that somewhere (the tendency to leave out 'the' when speaking of people in journalistic style), but can't remember where. Can you point me to where it is discussed? I don't object (though I am so used to omitting the 'the' that including it now feels old-fashioned to me), but wanted a quick refresher. Carcharoth (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Carcharoth It frequently arises on WP:Errors. I have no problem whatsoever with your bringing this up for discussion at WT:DYK, and it would probably be a healthy discussion. Right off hand, I couldn't pick it up on a search of the error page. What it's based on is MOS:ENGVAR, at least that's what cited when they do it. Speaking as an American, we don't require "the" on this side of the Atlantic. I would be just as happy if we didn't insist on it. But it gets changed if anybody complains...and many do. I got sick off seeing it, so I started sticking "the" in when I promote to Queue just to avoid the obligatory complaint on the Errors page. In essence the main page is being forced into British English on this issue. As I say, you are welcome to bring it up at WT DYK.— Maile (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Protection issue

Hi, Recently you declined to put extended-confirmed protection on the article Western Wall Tunnel riots. It is listed here at the moment, but that's a rolling archive which will disappear soon. The justification you gave was:

"Per WP:ECP Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes. Justification not evident for protection. No vandalism has occurred on the article."

I wish to argue that your decision was incorrect. This article belongs to a class of articles to which ArbCom has extended special protection; specifically, users without extended-confirmed status are not permitted to edit at all. If you examine ArbCom's resolutions you will see that those areas are exempted from the need for prior abuse:

Extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.

The sentence you cited from WP:ECP might seem to contradict that but actually it doesn't because of the word "(valid)". There is no "valid" content dispute between an e-c user and a non-e-c user on such an article because the non-e-c user is banned from the article altogether. ArbCom even excluded reverts of non-e-c users from the 3RR rule for those articles. Regards. Zerotalk 12:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Collapsing DYK reviews

Maile66, I have just uncollapsed a number of your reviews. The collapse obscured a great deal of information that needs to be seen, including the entire review process, image selection, etc. I don't think this is a good precedent. If you feel it's important to collapse the reviews into a bar going forward, then let's discuss it on the DYK talk page.

It's unfortunate, but to my eye it looks unfortunately reminiscent of those "good 2 go" reviews that were so prevalent long ago—icon, those words, and nothing else—and I would hate for them to make a comeback because they have the same icon and wording, only without the bar and the "show" link. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for telling me. — Maile (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Rename battle

Greetings: There is a mistake in the label Battle of Nur Shams is true Battle of Anabta, please fix bugs.

Bahaa.pal (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving the article to a different name, which is what you mean, is already being discussed at Talk:Battle of Nur Shams. Whether or not it is renamed will be decided there. If it is decided to move it, someone will post a request on that page to have it moved. — Maile (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise

Hello, You deleted and article entitled Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise because you claimed it was marketing content. Please reinstate this article as it was factual without any marketing info. I purposefully did not include any "marketing language", as its not appropriate to wiipedia. I used third party sources, and was researching additional sources per the the last comments left in July. The last comments from your fellow reviewers on July 27th did not feel the information was marketing related. This is a large company in Europe that was founded in 2014. There are numerous companies included in wikipedia. including Facebook, Cisco , etc. I only want to provide historical and background information and company trends. That was requested by a previous reviewer in a July review. Please let me know what I steps I need to take, so this article can be restored. Thank you in advance for working with me on restoring this article, Respectfully yours 19oink (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise had been nominated for Speedy Deletion as advertising. It had been declined twice in July as a submission for an article. Please post your request to restore it at Requests for undeletion.— Maile (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi Maile66.

I do not know what your interests are outside of GA reviews, but I was hoping you might have a minute to take a look at Talk:Barry_O'Callaghan#Draft, where a draft article I have prepared has been waiting for consideration for article-space for almost three months. Some substantial criticisms/failures genuinely warrant inclusion in this BLP page, but my opinion of the current article is that it relies heavily on blurbs, brief mentions, and low-quality sources and does not incorporate a more reasonable balance of successes and failures. Stuff like "We did the milk round, [clarification needed] where all these banks show up on campus. You'd listen to some boring fart for half-an-hour and then there was a free bar" is not really an appropriate, encyclopedic quote.

Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 12:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Queen and I

I'm still waiting for access to Questia. But I was wondering. Are there any images in the book specifically of Iaukea with the elderly Queen Liliuokalani? It would probably look something like the first six second of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be7hLs608oU. I suspect the man in white must be Iaukea.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR The one who wrote the book, Sydney Lehua Iaukea, is a woman who is currently alive. See 2011 Hawaii Book and Music Festival. She is a descendant of Curtis P. Iaukea, the one I assume you mean (more than one by that name in history). There are images of this Curtis P. Iaukea in the book, none of which show him with the queen. Images in the book:
  • Curtis P. Iaukea in dress uniform, 1880s. (like a publicity head and shoulders shot)
  • Curtis P. Iaukea in Hawaiian Kingdom dress uniform, 1930s
  • Curtis P. Iaukea with his ceremonial horn, 1930s

The other images do not show him.

I'm just beginning to read and went straight to the 28-page chapter "“E paa oukou” (You hold it): Charging Queen Lili‘uokalani with Insanity and “Holding” the Trust Intact" I've only read about 10 pages, but it's uncomfortable to know they filed legal documents challenging her sanity and competence. — Maile (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The bill spoke of a helpless and dependent woman. This move opened a “vacuum of knowing” on the Queen’s part, to be filled by a “next friend” in the form of Prince Kūhiō, and after he was removed by the courts, by a guardian in the form of Lorrin Andrews. Infantilizing the feminine is common in western practice. In this system of knowing, any show of emotional weakness by a woman encourages/demands subordination to a masculine protectorate. The insanity trials denied Queen Lili‘uokalani her voice and rendered her silent, further attempting to distance her from her mana. p. 97 of the book

My questia account just got approved and I will start reading it now. Yes the lawsuits were a dark part of Liliuokalani's life. Money and greed are largely to blame for those who took advantage of the queen in her waning years. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
Yep, any editor can take an article straight to FAC without going through the others first. It's a matter of personal comfort level, I think. A-class (where available), GA and Peer Review can all be used to help weed out various things before making it to FAC. Some also believe that those processes puts the article out there and helps raise interest so others might be prone to help with its FAC review. All processes, IMO, have extremely long wait periods before a review happens. FYI, there is now Mentoring for FAC for the newbies. When this was in discussion stage, a prerequisite of GA was floated (it didn't pass). — Maile (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Request for Review

Hi Maile66.

Sorry to keep bothering you, but if you have a minute to spare, I wanted to see if you could take a look here. I've been trying to get someone to review some suggested changes for a month and the current article has become factually incorrect by the nature of being out-of-date. CorporateM (Talk) 00:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

CorporateM I would encourage you to post this request at Administrators' noticeboard if you want to jump ahead of everyone else in line. I know the clog at Wikipedia is frustrating, so maybe posting at the AMnoticeboard will help. Right now, I'm in the middle of lengthy research, and don't have time to handle this for you. Good luck. — Maile (talk) 20:16, 12 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)
moved to article talk page
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)

DYK: Paul Nahaolelua

With your experience on DYK. Is it okay if I were to nominate this DYK with the hook "... that Paul Nahaolelua (pictured) was President during the elections of two Hawaiian monarchs?" and have it nominated for US Election Day? This would be my first misleading hook I've ever considered. Also is it allow to ask another user to review your DYK nomination.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR The hook is fine, but you shouldn't capitalize "president" per WP:JOBTITLES. When I click on the Commons link for that image to check the Bishop Museum licensing, it times out. You can request it for November 8, as it is not really related to the current election, or any election in the last 142 years. There's nothing that says you can't ask a specific person to review your nomination, but don't make the request on the nomination template. Since you are on a short time frame about this, I would suggest posting a generic request on WT:DYK and mentioning you'd like to get it passed and promoted to run on November 8. That route seems to get quicker results. — Maile (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

WT:DYK post

Hi Maile, I note your post here in regards to the LavaBaron nomination of Scott Simplot for DYK. I do not agree with LavaBaron's characterisation of ALT1 and found his later comments offensive. I posted to the discussion to indicate that withdrawal of the nomination, whilst an option, was not necessary and that he could have struck the ALT, which I would have accepted. There was increasingly heated back-and-forth, so I am not surprised by the discussion being closed. However, your close described what had happened as harassment and I strongly deny having harassed LavaBaron or anyone else. I ask that you modify your close either to indicate who you see as having harassing LB, or to choose an alternative phrasing that removes the accusation of policy non-compliant editing / behaviour. I am asking here to avoid re-starting the discussion. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

EdChem I was not referring to you, nor did I mention you by name. Nor do I want to carry this on forever. The discussion has been closed by The Rambling Man. The tipping point was the last post before I posted. — Maile (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrator help needed

Hi Maile, I've just encountered a spate of reversions of my work by User:Vosizneias and, on the Rachel Freier article, by User:Satmar1. The first user is a suspected WP:COI, and the second is a suspected WP:SOCK of the first. Can you assist in determining whether these are reliable accounts, and whether they should be blocked? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah I suspect you are correct. However, this needs to be filed at WP:SPI. I'm not a member of that team, but they can run all the checks you need for this. That page shows you how to open an investigation. — Maile (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, User:Vosizneias has just gone ahead] and violated the 3RR rule. Since he just started editing recently and never got a "welcome" message directing him to read Wikipedia's policy pages, I'm sure he doesn't know what he's doing. Can you put a block on him or the page? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I blocked 'em. Trolling, 3R, repeated adding of unsourced content. However, I still encourage you to submit this, along with the other one, to SPI. This might be part of a larger socking and should be stopped. — Maile (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Yoninah I also protected the page for a week. Let's hope this helps. — Maile (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help! I was actually trying to expand this article beyond a stub so I could nominate it for DYK within the 7-day window (which ends today). Is the page considered to be stable enough so I can nominate it? Yoninah (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I also just blocked Satmar1. So use your judgement. With those two blocked and the page protected, seems it might be stable enough. Let me know if it gets out of hand again and can't be settled with the talk page. But, again, if you need the SPI people to step in, you know where to find them. — Maile (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hi Maile,talk should be blocked! i worked hard to write up a article about Rachel Freier article and this yoninah just goes and deletes the whole article i dont understand how can wiki let such a thing be done i spent 5 hours writing up this article with sources to everything i wrote and this yoninah yemach shmoi goes and deleted all my work he should go to gehenim for what he has done to me waisted so much of my time and put it into garbage please admin of wiki make sure to block and boot yinainah from this website thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vosizneias (talk • contribs) 17:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Trial of Liliuokalani

Do you know what newspaper this image is from File:Trial of Liliuokalani (PP-98-12-007).jpg? I can't find it searching the caption or the "Regal" heading.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR, can't find a thing on it. A clue is the name C. S. Bradford in the upper right hand side above the drawing. Bradford was hired by the Pacific Commercial Advertiser in January 1895: Local Brevities. — Maile (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
KAVEBEAR, if you have Julia Flynn Siler's book Lost Kingdom, this image is in there with the glossy images in the middle of the book. It is attributed to the San Francisco Examiner. — Maile (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

William Austin Whiting

I expanded William Austin Whiting. Although it is not the best. How do I withdraw a deletion request? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You've done what you can by requesting it be withdrawn. Since I participated in it, I cannot close it for you. It's waiting time, unless you feel comfortable asking someone else to close it for you. No harm in asking. Otherwise, wait a couple of days and see if it happens. If you plan to nominate it for DYK, you can do that while it still has the AFD template on there. The nomination will just sit there unreviewed until the AFD is closed out. — Maile (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

John Dominis Holt, IV

Do you have access to JSTOR? Can you look at this article and add anything of importance to John Dominis Holt, IV? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I had full access to that article. Most of what's in there is analyzing Holt's style as a writer, story by story. But I did find one thing in there about the atmosphere he grew up in, so I added it. — Maile (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3

Hi, Fram pulled the last hook, a quirky bio, per the discussion at WT:DYK. There are other quirky bios that could be promoted in its place, in Prep 4:

and Prep 5:

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah I notice you have been part of the conversation on that nom. From your perspective, does it look like it cannot be resolved in 16 hours? Queue 3 doesn't go on the main page until Nov 17. — Maile (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
It's a new editor, and the article needs much better sources. I don't think it's going to be fixed in 16 hours, but we could wait and see. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Ping me again tomorrow if it isn't fixed, and I'll do the substitute. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK Parker Cabinet

Do you think we can finish the new articles on the three ministers of the Parker Cabinet within the next 7 days and nominate them as a three articles hook on DYK? I am working on Peterson's article. We can expand Cornwell a little and create a start article for Colburn which meet the minimum for the DYK criteria. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested hook: "that on January 13, 1893, Queen Liliuokalani appointed four new cabinet ministers: Samuel Parker, William H. Cornwell, John F. Colburn, and Arthur P. Peterson, whose oppositions to her promulgation of a new constitution, ultimately led to her overthrow on January 17?"--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm OK with the idea. I'll work a little harder on Colburn, but you might do it better. I feel like I'm getting bogged down in the details of his interactions with trusts, and I can't find anything on his life before then. Help would be appreciated on that one.— Maile (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I saw and it might be a bit too detail what you have the sources for even for me to do right now. I suggest creating a shorter start (which will meet the 2000 word criteria for DYK) for now covering the most important information. And the ideas is that you will have the sources to later expand more further on it in the future.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

For the purpose of the hook please include something like this but tweaked to fit each person. I need to add additional to support the oppositions part from "She attempted" to "Safety" which I can probably find in Kuykendall and Twigg-Thurston.On January 12, 1893, Queen Liliuokalani re-appointed him as Attorney General to the final Parker Cabinet with [[Samuel Parker (Hawaii)|Samuel Parker]], [[William H. Cornwell]], and [[John F. Colburn]] after her previous cabinet was voted out.<ref name="PetersonRecords"/><ref name="1893Cabinets"/> She attempted to promulgate a [[Proposed 1893 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii|new constitution]], but Peterson and the rest of the cabinet were either opposed to or reluctant to sign the new constitution. Their opposition was one of the causes which ultimately led to her [[Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii|overthrow]] by the [[Committee of Safety (Hawaii)|Committee of Safety]]. After the overthrow, Peterson and the rest of the Parker Cabinet were removed from office.{{sfn|Hawaii|Lydecker|1918|pages=178, 188}} ''additional sources needed''--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I can get Colburn written up in the next 7 days. We'll need 3 QPQs, and if you need any, I have several hundred reviews that I've never used as QPQs. — Maile (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I finished Arthur P. Peterson's article. I haven't used all the sources I found as of yet but it covers most of the basics about him. If you can use your QPQs that would be great, so I can save up mine unused ones for other nominations I have planned for the future.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@KAVEBEAR: Have a look at my draft. Except for some tweaks, I think it says what needs to be said about Colburn. Edit however you want, and I'll create the article afterwards. If you want to write the DYK nom, for QPQ you can use The Infinite Vulcan, Babette's and Nilgai. — Maile (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Who was McCandless? Is this the scene for the betrayal of her two ministers? I think Liliuokalani did say something about Colburn's betrayal in particular. Also the source for his wife, children and stepchildren is about the the death of former Attorney General Antone Rosa not anything to do with his family. I think it is good for the most part. We are a bit under with Cornwell's article at the moment, but I can get to that later today.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@KAVEBEAR: Colburn article created. McCandless was part of that Committee of Safety. I corrected the source for the wife and kids. I've added enough prose to Cornwell that it should be OK. — Maile (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
If you noticed, I refrained from expanding into too much detail about the overthrow because I still don't understand the whole story fully yet. It has to do largely with my procrastination in reading the sources where I know where the information is or forgetting sources I've already read before. But if I were you, I would look at Kuykendall as well (it's easy to access on ulukau; as well a few more detailed sources; I don't know what you have access to) to balance out the bias of the source currently used. I know I suggested you using the Twigg-Thurston source but the bias is still there and should be compared with other sources if possible. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@KAVEBEAR: Footnote added to cover this. Edit as you wish on the footnote. — Maile (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Also I saw your and copied your use of the archiving tool and it is helping me so much lately, I went back and archived all my talk pages I've deleted back to 2008. Man I feel old.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages that are never archived drive me nuts. People have to scroll...and scroll...and scroll...and scroll. For 9 years, I just deleted old posts. But when I ran for admin, I realized there might be value in old posts, so I restored them all to archived pages and then added the archiving tool. — Maile (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Rude

Please attempt to talk to me before reverting any of my administrative actions in the future. TRM is a poor guide. He is a tendentious anti-American editor, and he had his sysop access revoked recently by ArbCom. You'd do best not to blindly follow his lead. Jehochman Talk 01:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this is the first time I made any changes under the WP:ERRORS for ITN. I'm sorry if you were offended by this, but there were two other people on the Errors page who had requested this before The Rambling Man ever said anything. I don't know if that page is on your watchlist, but it should be, because you did not respond to them before I did anything. If you think TRM, or anyone else, pulls my strings, you are laboring under a great misunderstanding. Please do not debate about personalities on my talk page. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
You acted correctly. It was a good pull that did not have to be debated with the poster. Thanks. Stephen 07:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I've restored the item upon further discussion. The reason to discuss things is to avoid conflicts between admins. I regret that you are unwilling to follow that guidance. Jehochman Talk 07:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Jehochman as an admin, you should know that personal attacks are against policy, and worse, to do so behind my back is worse than tendentious. Your initial actions were both against policy and against consensus. Please re-familiarise yourself with WP:ADMINACCT. I now see you have also used your tools in an involved manner by re-posting the still-inadequately sourced BLP. This will not help your cause. Also, please substantiate your claim of me being "anti-American" or else redact it. I work hard here to make sure this doesn't become American Wikipedia. Your actions and those of your fellow rogue American admins who misbehave and abuse the main page and community consensus in this way are simply manifestations of that creep. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I typed a nice response but you edit conflicted it. In short, let's not argue here. Jehochman Talk 08:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Cooke

Do you have library acces to either editions of this book? It could provide a valuable account of the Cooke's first mentioning of Lililuokalani. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Cooke, Amos Starr; Cooke, Juliette Montague (1937). Richards, Mary Atherton (ed.). The Chiefs' Children School: A Record Compiled from the Diary and Letters of Amos Starr Cooke and Juliette Montague Cooke, by Their Granddaughter Mary Atherton Richards. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. OCLC 1972890.
  • Cooke, Amos Starr; Cooke, Juliette Montague (1970) [1937]. Richards, Mary Atherton (ed.). The Hawaiian Chiefs' Children's School (Revised ed.). Rutland, VT: C. E. Tuttle Co. ISBN 9780804808811. OCLC 1185695.

Not either of those books (as far as I can find), but something interesting:

  • Menton, Linda K. (Summer 1992). "A Christian and "Civilized" Education: The Hawaiian Chiefs' Children's School, 1839-50". History of Education Quarterly. 32 (2). Champaign, IL: History of Education Society: 213–242. JSTOR 368986. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

The Cookes are used as sources.

p. 226 "I have a new pupil or boarder," Juliette Cooke wrote when Lydia Kamehameha, the future Queen Liliʻuokalani, arrived in 1842, "a child of three years."

p. 231-232 is a quote from Liliʻuokalani's book about the Cookes and going to church on Sunday.

The only two places in that particular article that is mentions her. — Maile (talk) 22:29, 23 October 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)

CopyingPD Sources

What is Wikipedia policy on copying PD sources directly in relation to this review I just did Template:Did you know nominations/Appropriations Committee Suite? I always presumed it was not allowed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Public domain. You might also read DYK Eligibility criteria. If it's public doman, it's not violating any copyright law. I think the issue is more how DYK views this, and I don't recall it ever being brought up before. Is it really "new", if it was a copy from a PD source? It might be best to ask at WT:DYK where it can be more widely discussed. — Maile (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

About Texas flag 1824

Thank you Maile for your information about former Alamo's flag.If you can notice italian section about Fort Alamo battle that show the Texan State Flag like Alamo's fort flag! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.62.135.212 (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't read or speak Italian, but I posted a message on the talk page of their Battle of the Alamo article. — Maile (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

ITN

Why did you remove the comma? [6] Stephen 01:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Because it was reported on WP:ERROR...as stated in the edit summary when I did that. And if you look at the timing of that, no one else had yet posted beneath that error posting. — Maile (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Not everything on Errors is a valid error. Stephen 02:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The way I learned English, that WAS an error. Nevertheless, it's been changed back. No harm, no foul. A comma is a very minuscule issue when it comes to MP issues. So are we done with this subject now? Thank you for asking, and I replied. — Maile (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Re [7]

Perhaps a further reading section would be useful? Would help readers researching the topic too. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article and ensuring it remains at FA quality. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning. Taken care of. — Maile (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

CopyingPD Sources

What is Wikipedia policy on copying PD sources directly in relation to this review I just did Template:Did you know nominations/Appropriations Committee Suite? I always presumed it was not allowed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Public domain. You might also read DYK Eligibility criteria. If it's public doman, it's not violating any copyright law. I think the issue is more how DYK views this, and I don't recall it ever being brought up before. Is it really "new", if it was a copy from a PD source? It might be best to ask at WT:DYK where it can be more widely discussed. — Maile (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@KAVEBEAR: Please see this. For next time it comes up somewhere. — Maile (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Julia Appianni Colburn

How do you know her name was Appianni? It's not in the source you used after the sentence mentioning her in John F. Colburn. I'm asking since Lahilahi Webb mentions she had an aunt named Julia Colburn.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Julia Appianni Colburn at Find a Grave It's on the headstone she shares with John F. Colburn. — Maile (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Also Carlos Long seems to be her son by a previous marriage.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Where did you get the figures nine children from the first marriage and five for the second?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll get back to you about the children. I just logged on. I think I pieced the number of his children together from articles about her. I'll get back to you on that. — Maile (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@KAVEBEAR: The source I used didn't make it into the final version when I published the article. But it should have. It's an obit that says 5 children by one husband, and 9 children by the other. In a way it sounds like Colburn is the father of 9, until you start looking at the last names. The source is confusing to me, given the two names that are neither Long nor Colburn, and the possibilities of one family marrying into the other. Here's who they list as the children upon the wife's death - you tell me which children belong to whom. 16:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Giovanni A. Long
  • Carlos A. Long
  • Elin A. C. Long
  • Antonino A. Long
  • Appiani Long
  • Miss Kaena Long
  • Minor Long
  • Mrs. B. H. Wright
  • Mrs. A. G. Simpson
  • John F. Colburn III
  • Miss Julia Colburn
  • Miss Lena Colburn
  • Miss Helen Colburn
  • Miss Pleiades Colburn
"Mrs. J. F. Colburn Dies in Sanitarium". The Hawaiian Gazette. Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii. March 24, 1916. Retrieved November 7, 2016 – via Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress. (far right column, bottom of the page)
I don't think the obituary does the issue justice. The list is presumably based on birth order which is why Appiani, Kaeha and Minor are listed last and based on a few genealogy sites just by googling their names and the marriage records from the Hawaii State Archuves they were Colburn's children while Mrs. Wright was a Long. No idea who Mrs. A. S. Simpson is though.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Carine Goren

Hi, this is certainly a strange notice that you added to my talk page, crediting me for both Carine Goren and Wikipedia! Yoninah (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! But why aren't you using the regular box which lists the hook as well? Just wondering. Yoninah (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
At least you got one. I don't usually do manual updates, and don't know if I ever did them before yesterday (maybe...don't remember), so I've been trying to find out which templates to use by going through the old notices I see. I found Template:UpdatedDYK that was used for Charles E. King to notify me manually. And I've seen that one on many of mine that were a manual notice. Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to sort through multiple templates with no instructions on which ones to use. — Maile (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe ask Casliber. He often does these updates. Yoninah (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Just one more thing at DYK for which there is more than one way to do things. I've been envisioning "DYK: The Board Game", played just like Monopoly. You roll the dice to make your way around the board, and if you land on "Pick a Rule" square, you take from a stack of cards that has all those DYK Rules.— Maile (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I am so rusty at manual updates (years...). agree they are obscure at times. gotta run and do chores....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Maile, I thought that was very efficient of you to ping each editor in answer to TRM's questions. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...
gnomish guidance
... you were recipient
no. 692 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Kūʻē Petitions

Can you move Kū’ē Petitions to Kūʻē Petitions as an admin? I used to be able to do these kind of moves, but now titles with ʻokina are blacklisted for normal users to move because of this.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR Did I do it correctly? Never performed a page move over a redirect before. — Maile (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I think you did.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maile66/Archive_6&oldid=1139004491"