User talk:Mike Cline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Mike Cline! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I think it's very important for you to browse through some of the links below so as to become familiar with how Wikipedia works. If you need any help you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and another Wikipedian will show up shortly. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Wikisigbutton.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you're already loving Wikipedia and plan on becoming a Wikipedian you might consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor, just paste {{Adoptme}} into your userpage and you will gladly be adopted! You might also consider joining a WikiProject so as to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! LittleOldMe 15:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Contents

[edit] links

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - Understood --Mike Cline 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fly Fishing

Happy New Year Eagle....just wanted to let you know that I reverted back an article you changed Fly Fishing. I believe you thought there was vandalism but in actuality, I though, a well written contribution by Mike. Once again "Happy New Year". Shoessss 20:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted because I am and was patrolling for spam. Adding 4 links to website forums, seems to qualify to me as extra fluff that takes away from the quality of the article. I would advise that most if not all of those should be removed, per our guidelines on external links. If any of them are useful, please include them as citations, just remember to check and make sure that they are reliable sources. I am sorry that I had reverted the rest of an otherwise good edit. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Note this message is also on the talk page of Fly fishing

I did see your comments on Mike's page about the links....I'll go an clean them up. Just wanted to give you a heads up on what was going on. Shoessss 21:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Mike...I did leave your links in place...they looked fine to me. Happy New Year! Shoessss 21:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

After a more careful review of the External Links guidelines I would have removed them myself. However, I think the first overview edits were appropriate. --Mike Cline 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your query

Hi Mike,

Sorry for the lack of response to your question, but I've been ill and have not been on Wikipedia in over a week. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question. My advice would be to discuss the issue at the village pump. Regards LittleOldMe 12:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest?

I've noticed you've been adding a great deal of material to wikipedia that could be seen as promtional in nature for you, your company, and/or your co-workers. Since you've disclosed your employer on your user page, I'm rather surprised by it. Have you read through WP:COI and WP:SPAM? --Ronz 21:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ronz

I am intriqued my your comments and would ask this question: Is it a conflict of interest to add material to Wikipedia on processes or things practiced or recognized by many different entities? I have read the COI and SPAM topics but feel that I am not violating the spirit and intent of these guidelines. This is especially true of the idea that Wikipedia content be of a factual and neutral tone. Has anything I've added to Wikipedia not been neutral, balanced or documented. If you can identify those contributions that violate Wikipedia's neutrality to me, I would appreaciate it. I live on the Coosa River, and I have been contributing well documented information on the Coosa River topic. Because I live on the river, does that mean I have a conflict of interest and shouldn't contribute to the article. In the process of working on my current interests in Wikipedia, I encountered the article Twelve leverage points. An examination of that article reveals that it is based on the writing of one scientist, available only in the form a PDF paper. Although the single source has a clear bias and agenda, the article is essentially neutral in light of the single source. The article has survived since it inception in 2003 without any claim of conflict of interest. That is fine with me, I found the article informative, although I do not share the obvious bias of the author. I truely believe in the collaborative processes that make Wikipedia such a valuable resource. Making the complex simple, Wikipedia for me, my co-workers and my clients is a source of reliable, accurate knowledge. That reliability and accuracy is derived through truly collaborative processes. I will however be seriously concerned if it is the Wikipedia way to deny truth because of the source of the truth, rather than based on the falsity of the "truth." In the Wikipeida way, I welcome all challenges and edits to any contributions I've made--as long as they are based on documented facts, not personal agendas. --Mike Cline 03:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. My concern is with Strategic management, Strategic planning, Prometheus Process, Center of gravity (military) , Orchestrator (strategy), Rules of engagement (strategy), Prime Directive (strategy), Strategic campaign, etc. I'm asking you to consider your contributions to these articles in light of WP:COI and WP:SPAM, and consider making changes and/or disclosures as necessary. --Ronz 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Ronz, I have again read the COI and SPAM guidelines. Two Points: 1) Although I can understand where you are coming from on the COI front, I do find it a bit insulting to connect any of my contributions with WikiSpam, but I may be wrong. 2) You suggest making changes and/or disclosures as necessary to the above group of articles. What changes might those be? If any of these contributions are not in the correct style, are not neutral, verifiable (and propertly referenced) or encyclopedic, then I need to learn how to make them so! If the article titles are equally inappropriate, then I need to learn how to correct that. The implication that because I am associated with a company (which I do not deny) (I was educated about and associated with the strategic planning discipline long before my current employment) that teaches strategy, my contributions are not neutral, encyclopedic, or verifiable is tough to swallow without specific cites to the contrary. Additionally, the COI guidelines suggest inviting others to contribute to articles. I welcome that, so just what is the best way to accomplish that?

--Mike Cline 11:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, and wish I could answer better. I'm a bit overwhelmed with the amount of editing you've done in a short period, most of which I see as having COI issues. I've asked for assistance [1], and have been advised to bring this up on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard.
You asked what changes would I suggest? Fair question. If I were you, I'd very strictly follow the guideline from WP:COI, "avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with". To do so, I'd delete all the new articles I've created (they all appear to be on topics your company consults and publishes), and move all references I've added to the corresponding talk page with a disclosure and a reason for adding the reference (especially references to your co-worker Colonel John A. Warden, III, to his books, to anything else published by under Venturist Publishing, and anything else that might appear promotional for your company). I'd then research verifiable, reliable sources to support my proposed references and edits to articles where I have a conflict of interest.
Personally, I just avoid contributing to articles where I have a conflict of interest. --Ronz 17:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I've started the noticeboard discussion here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Mike_Cline. --Ronz 17:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your questions on notability: WP:Notability is the general guideline, WP:BIO is more detailed relating to notability of individuals. --Ronz 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Also Links Question

Ronz, I noticed that you reverted an edit on the Innovation article on a See Also line by removing the explanatory comment along side the link. My question here is purely one of Wikipedia Style of which I cannot find a definitive guideline, although there no doubt may be one. Are explanatory comments allowed, encouraged or discouraged along side See Also links? A cursory examination of many Wikipedia articles disclose many See Also links with explanatory notes. If they are allowed (and not discouraged) then I would believe that the guidelines for them would be the same as for any content--accuracy, neutrality, verifiability, logic, encyclopedic, etc. And that editors, instead of just removing them (the explanatory comments), should correct them to make them so. Any guidance on this? --Mike Cline 11:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also. You'll notice that none of the articles where I removed the description had any other links with descriptions. Generally, I think you're stretching it with your See also entries, and there's a good argument for removing most, maybe all, of them. --Ronz 16:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open Question On Commericalism

As anyone who reads this, may or may not know, I was involved in a recent COI skirmish with Wikipedia. I believe that has or is resolving itself. This is not a COI question! Recently I read the book "Wikinomics" just released in January of this year, so I thought I'd see if it was referenced somewhere in Wikipedia and it what context. I was also interested to see how the buzzword "Wikinomics" coined by the title of the book was being handled as well as the general concept of Wikinomics. All this was an attempt on my part to better learn how to avoid COI issues and other guideline problems in the future. Low and behold I find an article on the book, that reads like a typical book review, although in an NPOV sort of manner. I almost expected to find an Amazon link as I read the article. It wasn't far away. The link to the author's commerical website had the "Buy" button prominently displayed. There is an article stub for the term Wikinomics but it merely references the author's book as the source of the term and links back to the book review article. I think the editors who contributed to the "Wikinomics" book review article did a fair job at NPOV and I find the article useful but its not much different than a typical on-line advertisment for a product.

However, if that same approach was applied to just any book, new or otherwise, by editors that had absolutedly no COI related to the book, would it be considered commercialism and permitted on Wikipedia?--Mike Cline 16:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "official" link, and started a discussion on the situation in Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Official_book_site.3F. It's not cut-and-dry, since the editors have listed the site as an official site. Official sites are encouraged in most cases Wp:el#What_should_be_linked, but the site is highly promotional. The book is brand new and almost no attempt has been made to demonstrate its notability - all issues that I weigh against promotional links. It will be interesting to see what discussion results. --Ronz 17:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Ronz. Your actions answered my question. Thanks. Most of the knowledge, especially the new knowledge, in this world is created by people who are in business to make money--I think this applies equally to private and public corporations and companies, non-profits, and academic institutions. They all sell stuff--products, services, etc. or solicit money to generate revenue. They have income statements and balance sheets. No website for any of the above categories of revenue generating entities ought to be allowed in Wikipedia. Associating the word official with any site doesn't disquise or mitigate the above. I would include government sites in the above list but...., well you know! Your thoughts?--Mike Cline 00:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
A couple of things. First, I really try to avoid dealing with COI issues, so I'm not very familiar with the guidelines. Second, I think the guidelines are going to be changed shortly if [2] is any indication. Finally, I think it's a matter of weighing the value of the information on a website against the amount of promotion and advertising. The problem isn't that everyone is out to generate revenue, but that there are many ways to do so. In Wikiepdia disinformation, advertising, and information are treated very differently - sometimes it's just difficult to tell them apart. There is an very good solution that I see in many wiki articles - few or no external links other than for references. --Ronz 03:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are Suggestions For Contributions on Discussion Page Permitted in COI cases

Ronz If an editor cannot or choses not to contribute directly to an article because of a percieved or real COI, can that editor make suggestions on the Discussion page for the article. Suggestions made, not so much as to the specific content of the article, but to identify the wealth of source material available to support information for the article? To rephrase at bit, can a non-editor of an article still conduct research on the subject of an article and make that research available through the discussion page? --Mike Cline 19:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Editors are encouraged to contribute to the discussion page where there are COI issues. --Ronz 20:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ronz. I think I am learning the rules here and will play within them.--Mike Cline 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ronz. As I have been following the COI guidelines discussion I noted this recent change to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page

This page in a nutshell: Avoid editing, or participating in discussions about, pages you may have personal interest in. This way, you will be less likely to represent your personal point of view on Wikipedia

I would think that this statement contradicts the advise you just gave me. Am a right?--Mike Cline 16:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I should have said that editors are encouraged to contribute proposals for changes as well as potential source references to the discussion page rather than the article itself, and to disclose their conflict of interest on the discussion page. So, WP:COI cautions against editing the article as well as participating in other types of discussions on the article's talk page. --Ronz 16:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ronz, I see where it got reverted. I think your original advise is correct. Thanks--Mike Cline 18:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Suggested Suggestions

Ronz, I'd like you to preview the following post which I will eventually put on the discussion page for the Prometheus Process to ensure I am being consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks.

The following URL is public and contains references and links to information related to the Prometheus Process, John A. Warden III, and the book Winning In FastTime. It is my hope that researchers and editors wishing to contribute to the articles on the Prometheus Process and John Warden find it useful.

[3]

--Mike Cline 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Process

I was simply following the consensus on the page for the deletion. There was only one weak vote to keep the page and several votes to delete. There were a number of factors working against the article. The conflict of interest, yes, but there were also questions about the notability (see WP:CORP) and the reliability of the sources (see WP:RS). If you have any further questions, let me know. Best, IronGargoyle 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fishing WikiProject

Hi there Mike! Thank you for joining us in Fishing Wikiproject. Your previous contributions to Fly Fishing and to other Fishing related articles are all quite interesting and informative. Recently, our Fishing Portal has already been launched sometime last week, this is still a part of our effort to "organize articles on fishing". Please visit our Fishing Portal and contribute further. Thanks and more power! Bu b0y2007 03:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review Fishing Rod

Hi, Mike! I was hoping you'd check out the "Line Weight" section under Rod Specifications in Fishing Rod I just made a (hopefully!) minor edit trying to include fly rods into that section. (I tried rewording some of the stuff from the Fly fishing article. Since you're a frequent editor there I thought I'd ask if I got it right.) Thanks! LaughingVulcan 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Ad

Good start. I made a few mods, but otherwise I think you got the concepts right. I did question the 0-16 range for fly line weight, but if you have the source, go for it. Based on lots of other edits I've seen on the fishing side, I would work hard to include both US and European standards and measurements as much as possible. For example I added grams to the Lure Weight section as that is how Casting Weight is expressed in the UK.--Mike Cline 11:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Mike. Really appreciated your cleanup on the Fishing rod parts (the 16 came from the Fly Fishing article here, actually...  :O I figured you were the person to ask.) And I just made the major rewrite edit to the Panfish article, but I included the references you added. LaughingVulcan 20:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fly fishing and Striped Bass

On fly fishing: I've got a rod, reel, floating line, tapered leader, flies, fly box, jacket, books, and magazines. And I haven't gone or practiced yet.  ;) No waders yet, though. Mainly I use a spincast from shore.

On the striped bass article(s)... On the striped bass talk I've got links to a copy of the Striper article with the fishing section cut out, and a separate article on the fishing section. I'd like to bring the fishing section up to its' own article, and close the holes in the main article, then apply any changes made to the Striped bass article in the interim, and C/P the Striper article and Move the fishing article to Fishing (Striped bass) or the equivalent. If you've got any good editing tricks there, please drop by and give a hand.  :) LaughingVulcan 00:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

LV Start practicing casting. Get good at it. Take the flies and fly rod fishing. Leave the spinning rod home. You don't need waders in the summer, you just need synthetic underware as they dry faster. If you are catching Bluegill from shore with a spinning rod, you can do it with a fly rod. If you are in Illinois (Land of Lincoln?) they haven't outlawed fly fishing there yet. Anyone can cast a spinning rod, only fly fisherman can fly fish. Become a fly fisherman. I am almost 60 years old. I don't know how old you are but you've wasted most of your life not learning how to fly fish. Once you become somewhat proficient at fly casting, you'll find fly fishing to be an extraordinarily pleasant pastime, as well as an incredibly effective way to catch fish. Oh, by the way, keep your cat away from the flies. I will gladly impart any fly fishing advise at anytime.
I will look at the Striper stuff tomorrow. I think we are on the right track here. --Mike Cline 02:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fishing Assesment Drive

As you are part of WikiProject Fishing, you may be interested in our assesment drive. It will last for two weeks, and starts on the 18th June. See the drive page for more details. Thanks, themcman1 Talk 18:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Fishing Newsletter

The WikiProject Fishing Newsletter
Issue I - June 2007
If you would like to improve our future newsletters, go to our newsletter page.
News
  • Our assesment drive starts tomorrow. Thanks to LaughingVulcan and
    themcman1 talk for setting it up. There is a new template for this, so make sure you see the drive page, or see further down for more info.
  • Our first newsletter is out! (Although you probably already realised!)
  • Please add to the new list of core articles: Core article list.
  • Importance has recently been added to our template - see the assessment page for more details.
New Members

We have have had four new members join our project in the last two months. They are:
Assesment Drive

Info

  • Our assessment drive is to evaluate the 170 articles recently tagged, but with two or more wikipedians commenting and reaching a consensus on the article class and importance, and what to do to improve the article.
  • Help out! Awards will also be given out for how many articles you help with.
The To-Do list
  • Evaluate the 170 articles recently tagged

[edit] Article Assessment Drive

Hi! I kind of got away from the Striped bass fishing split because of helping set up the assessement drive. And I messed that up... see if the instructions at the top of the drive page make better sense now (after someone lists an article, other editors can just add comments to that Articles "Discussion" section.) If you have any ideas which would help to take out instruction creep while clarifying the directions better, go ahead and make the edits in the instructions. :) Oh, and I'm definitely giving flycasting a try (if I can ever give up the hunt for 'Gills from shore...) LaughingVulcan 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Really Like Your Fish Images

Keep adding your great fish photos, they rock--Cyber $hopper 20:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BTW on Assessment

  • Starting up the assessment drive (and helping to spearhead assessment in general) is something that caught me off guard. One of those, "I suggested it, so I'd better help with it!" moves. So even though we're halfway through the two weeks, I'm still playing catch-up ball with the structure of it. Which also means that while I've got an idea about how all this fits together in my head, I have documented very little of it. I'm getting it in bits and pieces, like the WIP guide to closing out the assessments at User:LaughingVulcan/sandbox/Closing Out Fishing Assessments (just for myself, right now.) But I'm also probably the only person who knows the assessment drive template intimately (like how when Completed is empty, articles fall into Category:WikiProject Fishing Assessment Drive, but when they're completed that changes to Category:WikiProject Fishing Assessed Articles.) Or that when completed=Y, it lists the link to the archived discussion of the article... Anyway, thanks for putting up with the "make it up as we go" aspects of it.  ;)
After the "drive" concludes, I'm hoping assessment and consensus assessment will remain as a regular part of the Project. (Especially since I doubt that we'll get anywhere close to all of them assessed.)
* I appreciate the work you are doing on the assessment drive. It is forcing me to think through many of the articles in a more comprehensive way, especially as they relate to one another. --Mike Cline 12:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crankbaits, plugs etc.

Just thought that I would inform you that I have merged Crankbait and Wobbler (fishing) into Plug (fishing) as it seems to be the most general term or the ancestor of these types of lure. I think that it would be best to work on these lures as a single article which can then be forked at a later date if necessary. Bfp (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree - The real pedigree here is "Plug" fishing. There is very little new in the lures we use today other than their names and materials. Most of the functional concepts were invented a long time ago by "plug" fisherman. Thanks. --Mike Cline 22:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bass fishing

Hello Mike,

The list of secondary references is *way* too long. I appreciate the effort you've made in standardising the format and alphabetising them, and wonder if you could find a way to trim the back a bit and/or encourage others to do so. One way is to take them from the book list and add them as in-line references. In theory, *all* works used by contributors should be cited as references, not as further reading titles. This makes it possible for people to go back and verify the fact or statistic quoted to see if it really is in said reference book. Another approach is simply to cull the list down to, say, the top ten titles from a historic and usefulness perspective. I note that some editors seem to do nothing but add book titles to articles, presumably because they are authors or sellers of said volume. Since I know nothing about bass fishing I hesitate to crop the book list myself, though in due course I may pluck up the courage.

Yours etc., Neale Monks 09:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Neale -- Interesting thoughts as the list of books is only but a portion of the work out there. I have not added many of the more pedestrian and fadish books on bass fishing that are out there. The idea that one could cut down to the "top 10" would be a very subjective exercise. If I cared less about fly fishing for bass, none of those would make the list. The same would hold true if all I cared about was fly fishing for bass, many of the titles wouldn't make my top ten. I added the books, because in total they provide and excellent overall perspective of Bass Fishing from its earliest practice up to today. It is weak on the professional side, but not because there isn't good literature on the subject, but because that's not my area of experience. Every book I added, I have read and studied and have in my personal library. They all provide insights into Bass Fishing. To include their ideas and cite them as inline references would essentially turn the article into a literature review on Bass Fishing which I don't think is the intent. However, as secondary references, they indeed, IMHO, contribute to the encyclopedic content of the article.

Since I know nothing about bass fishing I hesitate to crop the book list myself, though in due course I may pluck up the courage.

I would not think of removing references to Aquarium fish from an article, unless I had read the work and could cite unequivocally that the reference did not apply.

The list of secondary references is *way* too long.

I would consider the above a very subjective statement, clouded by realities of print publishing that just do not apply to digital works. We have the luxury of including extraordinary amounts of USEFUL information unconstrained by mere space requirements. All that should guide whether or not information is included is relavance, NPOV and verifiability.

--Mike Cline 12:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Mike. The issue isn't whether the books are relevant or not, so subjectivity doesn't really come into it. If one wanted to add all the useful books for subjects like dinosaurs or Shakespeare there would obviously be thousands! Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be lists of stuff (see WP:LISTS) however valuable such lists might be. If someone wants a list of books about bass fishing, they can avail themselves of any number of resources from library catalogues to Amazon.com. The point to the References section is that what's cited there has been used within the article to glean facts (see WP:REFS). Ideally, each fact is linked to a specific reference; take a look at Gar for example. In other words, a "literature review" as you put it is *exactly* what makes a good Wikipedia article -- remember the code: verifiability, not truth. I happen to be a professional writer about aquarium fish, so I think I know the "truth" about my subject, but I don't go around fish articles adding or removing stuff without first finding and adding a reference to back it up. And that reference has to be available to the general reader (quoting my PhD thesis for example would be kind of pointless since no-one reads it, not even me!). With that in mind, what the Bass Fishing article needs is for someone to connect those books to the facts in the article. The question therefore isn't whether a given book in the book list is good, but whether it was used in the article. One or two "further reading" books might be added, they often are, but there's no precedent for having dozens of them. I hope this helps clear things up. Cheers, Neale Monks 12:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fly Fishing

Hi, was thinking about nominating fly fishing for WP:FA, please could you comment on this and help it satisfy the featured article criteria - WP:FACR themcman1 talk 16:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belgrade, Montana

Hi Mike Cline, I removed your image Image:MintBarAndCafeMainStreetBelgradeMT.jpg from the Belgrade, Montana article. I felt that it was a poor image for which to illustrate an article about a specific town. Being a night photograph, devoid of people or street life, it doesn't add positively to the article. It seems you intended the picture to be of the 'Mint Bar and Cafe' neon sign, but it takes up a small portion of the frame. Is a bar sign the best picture to represent the town of Belgrade? Don't you think a well-lit daytime image of a landmark or general panorama would be much better to convey a better sense of place? Without the caption, no one would know that this picture was taken in Belgrade. Do you have other images that might be better as a lead image? Thanks. -- Ltvine | Talk 06:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Annotated Bibliography of Fly Fishing

I have nominated Annotated Bibliography of Fly Fishing, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annotated Bibliography of Fly Fishing. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Pilotbob (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fishing Bridge

Hi. Obviously you know quite a bit about angling in Yellowstone National Park. It strikes me as strange that there isn't an article on Fishing Bridge itself, but its possible there just aren't enough reliable sources. In your learned opinion, is there enough interesting material on Fishing Bridge to construct a decent article, or should we just toss a few lines in Yellowstone National Park and Angling in Yellowstone National Park and call it good? CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

CosmicPenguin - Indeed I suspect there is sufficient notability and substance to compile an article related to the Fishing Bridge. I first fished in the park in the 1970s and have seen a lot of changes over the years. The bridge is a notable landmark with alot of interesting and sometimes controversial history. Images old and new are easy to come by. I suspect it would take quite a bit of research to really discuss its origins and early history, but the nps.gov sites actually have alot of deep archives that can be accessed. I suggest you take a shot at it by building a page up to the 75-90% complete level on your subpages and then go live with the new article. Of course it can be linked from the YNP article and as a Main article from the Angling in YNP page. Good luck and I'll be happy to help in anyway.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Navigation panel for artificial flies

Greetings Mike. I've brought this discussion to your talk page since you seem to be the only one home on WikiProject Fishing. Bye the way, that's great work you have done on fly fishing, and I'm looking forward to seeing you complete its history.
I have put a navigation panel for artificial flies on the relevant articles. You can just click "Edit" and easily change this yourself. Some pages will need a little reformatting, maybe shifting a picture to accomodate the panel. But I haven't done this, so the navigation box will be easy to remove if it is not such a good idea. Best regards --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Geronimo20 - Thanks for the initative. A first blush, my inclination is to limit the navigation bar to the major categories of the artificial flies in the article instead of individuals flies. Taken to its extreme, the list of individual flies could be in the thousands. If the primary navigation was restricted to the categories, and possibly made hierarchical, it would be more useful. Thanks again. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

It's very quiet on WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing. The two of us are the only regulars at the moment. There was a flurry of activity in the middle of last year, but none of those participants have made a single Wikipedia edit for six months. I think we can assume they've gone. Then Mangostar ducked in for a bit and did some much needed radical surgery. But now he's browsing in other pastures.

The project, compared with other projects, is remarkably small. There are fewer than 300 articles, even incorporating fisheries and aquaculture. But there are a lot of loose ends and the assessment drive never really got off the ground. A lot of the articles within the scope of the project are a nightmare of uncited assertion. The problem can be avoided in the future by pouncing on new uncited additions (which I do now), but there is a horrible legacy mess to clean up.

I would like to know your thoughts. Do you think we should set up a drive for new members at some stage? I've been barging about doing things I think should be done, but these things should also be scrutinized by other people. The traffic statistics show that traffic on many of the less prominent articles has trebled since they got the navigation panels. There's been a big increase for Fly fishing as well. But I must be doing daft things here and there, and no one is there to tell me. I don't like that. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Geronimo20--You probably thought you were a project of one based on my delay in responding. I was out of town last week and had to do a bit of catch up in the office this morning, while my weekends, especially at this time of year are reserved for fishing.
I would agree that there is a need for more participation and a drive would be appropriate. Indeed I believe you hit on the one thing that really needs some work--the nightmare of uncited assertion. I would suggest that a drive focus on two things--1) adding the [citation needed] template to every article and/or section/sentence that needs citation. 2)Then imploring everyone to find and cite suitable references for the facts presented.
I would not worry about Barging around WP doing things as long as WP guidelines are being followed. I felt that way when I first started making edits but have now come to the conclusion that well founded (cited) facts and well written and organized articles make consensus after the fact far more easy than trying to generate consensus before anything is written. Barge away!--Mike Cline (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arnold Gingrich and other matters

Thanks for pointing that out. I don't know why I removed the fishing trappings from Arnold Gingrich. I often edit amongst a lot of interruptions and other things. I can only assume I read the main body of the article about him being an editor, was interrupted, and then carried on without realising I hadn't read the bullet points at the bottom.

I have recently "assessed" most of the fishing articles. Assessing the class of an article is relatively straightforward, but assessing importance is often a difficult balancing act, with many considerations. These assessments often hinge on the view you hold about what WikiProject Fishing is. Ideally it needs general discussion and the establishment of guidelines. When the project has more active editors? I have bunged things in for now so there is a launching platform. In some areas, like fishing by country and fishing communities, my assessments of importance are inconsistent (I'll go over them again later, and at least make them more consistent, even if not "correct".)

I have not assessed many of the articles relating to fly fishing for importance. It would be much better if you do that - do you mind? Please feel absolutely free and don't hesitate to change any edits I make. I'll discuss it with you if I really disagree. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Annotated bibliography of fly fishing

I have nominated Annotated bibliography of fly fishing, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annotated bibliography of fly fishing. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Mike, to avoid attention from deletion enthusiasts, can I suggest you add to this article a brief history of the fly-fishing literature itself - perhaps discussing the influence key authors had on the spread of the activity. Mayby even a brief history of annotated bibliographies of fly writing! --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in this exchange. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)