User talk:Maurreen/archive 7

Sudhan

Copied above from my user page. Maurreen 11:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen:

I checked into the Sudhan tribe and the Sadozai, there is no consenses if they are the same tribe therefore I suggest that Sudhan should be kept as a separate article rather than Sadozai. Can you comment, I will get the information including the citations to fix the article

trueblood 18:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is under Sudhan

trueblood 23:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions to Culture article

Maureen: I like the way you took your "blue pencil" to the Cultures by region section. I think it is really starting to look good. On the other hand, the section on Belief systems seems to me to be way too much. First off, at almost 2200 words (8 pages) it is overlong. Much of it is better covered in other articles. For example, instead of listing current adherents of religions, a link to Major religious groups, should suffice. We are beginning to face an article size problem. Can we somehow precis this information and provide the necessary links? Generally, I think we should be discussing the role and functions of religion in a culture, rather than giving details about the various forms of religious expression. Sunray 19:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what I hoped. However, you may be inadvertantly encouraging others less skilled with the blue pencil to do the same! Sunray 19:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a case of the salad bowl calling the melting pot black <grin>, but I was compelled to add French culture to the tidy division of the Americas in the Culture#Cultures by region. Then I thought I should give the Portuguese equal time. It all begs the question: are these neat groupings useful? See what you think. However, I can tell you that, as a Canadian, we reside somewhat uneasily in "Anglo America." Now I'm getting on my cultural imperialsim soapbox (sorry). Sunray 00:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so you wanted to get at the north/south or developed/non-developed dimension? Sunray 08:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

school counselor

I have nominated school counselor for .5 and 1.0. But I see that 1.0 is not finished yet. I believe this article is a class A article. It is peer-reviewed and cites scholarly text-book sources. It was written by a school counselor (me). It took me a long time to find somebody to peer review it. It has been peer reviwed by kukini(an admin), and an unknown. I would like to hear suggestions on how to improve the article, and help me get the ball rolling. Thanks whicky1978^talk 04:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why might not my article qualify as under .5? If only 2000 articles are included, wouldn't that basically be the FA articles?whicky1978^talk 02:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia article school counselor ranks two on Yahoo! search.whicky1978^talk 19:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It ranks 35 on MSN, and 19 on Googlewhicky1978^talk 19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will more articles be included in 1.0 than .5? How many articles will be fall under the category of education. You know that some of those country articles won't be as popular as school counselor.whicky1978^talk 14:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School cousnelor has 85 million hits. Did you try the search terms "guidance cousnelor" and "educational cousnelor" Plus all the British spellings. That makes nearly 100 million hits.whicky1978^talk 18:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are yu deleting the category culture?

I don't see any reason for deleting this category, since Classics is culture- Graeco-Roman culture. This is really awkward especially since you just reverted my reversion without bothering to explain. Tal :) 15:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, I'll add Classics to the Humanities category instead, and forget about the reversion thing... Tal :) 15:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I looked at the Category and I don't see why Indo-Iyran fits there and Classics doesn't? Is there a decesion in process to delete all articles from category: culture and move them to subcats or was your decision random? I don't see any "overpopulation" unless you consider articles and subcats under the same count? By the way,do you kow if it is okay to list an article both in a category and its subcategory? Tal :) 15:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture --> Good article

I like what you did with the "Culture by region" section. With respect to nominating the article for GA, I looked at our to do list to see what remains. The references still aren't quite up to par. Also, we need a picture for the lead, if possible. How about we do those things this week and then nominate it? Sunray 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished the "Notes" and "References" (or rather gone blind and can no longer make further changes). Now for a pic for the lead. Here are some ideas on Wikimedia Commons. I was thinking something like

Each of these show crowds of people and various aspects of culture. Do you think that something like this would be appropriate? Or do you have some other ideas? Once we have finalized the image, we should be ready to nominate the article for GA. Sunray 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or these from Commons/Dance in art, which show patterns and symbols. I thought that either

might do nicely (though I wish they were more ethnically diverse). Sunray 19:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two more from that same catalog:

And these:

Oh, and this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pieter_Bruegel_d._Ä._066.jpg

Looks good. I think we are ready to nominate it for GA. Have you gone through that process before? Sunray 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I'm not too familiar with WP:AID, so I was just wondering why you deleted the last 8 or so nominations, even though they were still in the process of getting the 4 requisite votes. AdamBiswanger1 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored them. Errabee 06:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community is now the Core Topics COTF

You showed support for Amazon rainforest at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration. Hope you can help.

WP:CBTF Hi Maureen, Thanks for your input about the Community article. I'm wanting to help revamp it, but I'm not sure what to do yet. Anyway I replied to your question at Talk:Community. Maybe we can get this ball rolling. CQ 11:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Scout

This isn't worthy of V0.5, but Kylie Minogue, Sharon Tate, and Rebecca Clarke are? You've got to be kidding. I've lost all faith in the V0.5 process. Rlevse 15:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Imperfect" that's an understatement. V0.5 has an article on prison experiments. So choice is left to luck of the draw as to which reviewer you get and lower quality B articles are chosen and yet you lose out on FA KEY articles on a highly esteemed achievement? What a farce. Rlevse 16:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Version_0.5_Nominations#FLAWED_PROCESS. It's a good spot to discuss this. Rlevse 17:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 0.5 eligibility

You're welcome. It's a shame that there is so much ill feeling over this subject when the project should be such a positive thing. Rossrs 07:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location Grid

I was trying to categorize Template:Location grid and Template:Location grid2, but i could not figure out which category they would fit under.... i just wanted them to be easier to find and easier to use. User:Raccoon Fox Talk 19:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and i agree. it will help us both out. :)

User:Raccoon Fox

Talk

23:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article changes

Hi Maurreen,

Your changes to the good article system make it more difficult to automatically mantain the list and make the promotion of articles more complex. Please discuss these changes on the good articles talk page first.

Cedars 00:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geography Category

Thank you for informing me of that miscategorization. It has been corrected. Mappychris 01:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)mappychris[reply]

Importance

Hi Maurreen,

Good to see you back and active with lots of ideas again! I'd always imagined we would use the same Top/High/Medium/Low system for the whole of Wikipedia. In other words you might get Foobar ranked as "Top" by WikiProject:Foobars but as perhaps medium by us at WP1.0. For something like this, take a look at the TWO importance rankings in this example. However, you might be right, maybe we need to define different terms so that people don't confuse relative importance with absolute importance. I'd also imagined these as being based on powers of ten - the inherent fuzziness in such choices (resulting in lots of hurt feelings last week) make something based on powers of two (doubling) unworkable IMHO. Could you please give me a link to Silence's proposal? I've been away from Wikipedia for a couple of days and probably missed some things! I see we now have over 16,000 articles now assessed, pretty exciting, eh?! Walkerma 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community

Hi back at you. I note that "we" have been burning the midnight oil of late. I enjoyed our collaboration on Culture (which I am still tinkering with a bit -- see what you think of the ending). Community is a bit tough for me at the moment. It has been subjected to various threads in the past and I can't yet see how to stitch it all together. CQ has suggested an outline, which looks promising. I was wondering about "we." Is it the royal we? And I have a second question for you:

Admin nomination?

You have been very active and productive as an editor. I would like to nominate you as an administrator. Would you accept if I did? Sunray 18:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that CQ 19:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the bold text from your name on that list. Sunray 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask which 3rd opinion rule this does not follow?

*Lance Armstrong - admin removed factual information about drug abuse allegations as published in a book [1] [2] [3] or as noted in our own Greg LeMond article.[4] [5] [6] Argues inclusion violates Wikipedia rules on biographies of living people. 12:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Socafan 13:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer Disagreement about drug abuse allegations against Lance Armstrong - factual information or violation of Wikipedia rules on biographies of living people? Socafan 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My wording at WP:3O was somewhat imprecise and underinformed. The overall activity did not follow the spirit of the page, if you follow me. I can give details if you like.

Either Disagreement about including drug abuse allegations against Lance Armstrong or Disagreement about application of [[WP:BLP|Wikipedia rules on biographies of living people] would be better.

I believe that your original listing was made in good faith and that it was relatively short and neutral. But the reply did not; that's not your fault. The reversions aren't helpful any which way. It appears that you two have a larger problem. I have some doubt that a third opinion will resolve the situation.

Also, I just noticed the above discussion. It looks like someone else is already involved. Maurreen 13:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind clarification. Unfortunately, there has still happened no real discussion at Lance Armstrong. The third individual that posted on my talk page also left a couple of comments at the other user's talk page but did not help top resolve the conflict. Maybe you could? You do not need to be a cycling expert, I am none, either. Socafan 13:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on fixing the content. That entire section was POV tagged for very obvious reasons. I have removed much of the redundancy and (I hope) all the innuendo. The book still needs to go in, but we need reliable sources discussing it and its credibility first. Feel free to pitch in, Maurreen. Just zis Guy you know? 14:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just make it more POV towards your preferred version. Socafan 14:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 1.0

I agree that we might be waiting a long time if we followed the FAC process. However, I think we do need a standard to shoot for. Initially that could be GA status. I've responded to your status and options comments in that vein. Sunray 21:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Types of community

Would you be able to take a look at my additions to the Types of community section? Feel free to be unwaveringly critical if you don't care for it (after all you've never held back before). I'm particularly interested in your take on the "Faith community" example. I wanted to generalize about faith communities, but realize that with Bush administration policies related to "Faith-based communitiy development," it may be contentious. Sunray 01:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maurreen. I can't say enough about the great work you and Sunray are doing on the Community article! As I said before in other spots, I think it's important for the Core topics to integrate well betwixt and amongst main articles, categories, portals, etc.. I made a tree and a list to try to help sort out all of this stuff. Tell me (you too, Sunray - I know you're watching :) if I'm on the right track or not. I'm also wondering how far from getting out of "Start" class we are in terms of WP:1.0. • CQ 16:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Information Technology

Why did you remove Category:Technology? It seems like IT is obviously a subset of tech; the article backs this up. Brian Jason Drake 10:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

How would you suggest it be "more clearly attributed?" Here's the quote which apprears at the bottom of the page of the citation given:

It is now clear that culture change is very complex. It has far ranging causes and effects. In order to understand all of the manifestations of change, we must take a holistic approach to studying cultures and the environments in which they exist. In other words, we must assume that human existence can be understood only as a multifaceted whole. Only then can we hope to understand the phenomena of culture change.

I had put it in as a direct quote, but thought it best to not end the article with a quote. So I paraphrased it and gave the source. I believe that is in line with academic standards and Wikipedia's policies. The statement is unremarkable for an anthropologist or sociologist, but probably is something that the average reader had not really thought of (hence wars, etc.). I will change the "must be looked at" to "may best be looked at." What else should we do? Sunray 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. I've qualified the statement along the lines you suggest. Sunray 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the standards could place more emphasis on readability and the "average reader." However, that message is present in current Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so there is no excuse for those who write overly academic articles. That having been said, "Culture's" tone does tend to be somewhat "academic." It reads like an introductory anthropology text. I don't take any responsibility for that as I was just an editor, not one of the original writers. I'm not sure whether I think that is a good thing or a bad thing. The article is no doubt challenging, in some ways, for the average reader. However, the message (reiterated in the last paragraph) is: "Culture is complex and difficult to grasp. Drink deep..." Sunray 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least 100% improved. What is interesting about our collaboration is the way that our skills complement one another. I would include the example of your comments on the last paragraph of the Culture article, which pushed it to a much improved level. The one exception to this may be that we both could be better spellers! :-) Sunray 20:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement

Maurreen,

I noticed that you copied a lot of information from a number of different sources to flesh out the article on measurement. I agree with this to a certain extent as the article was very theoretical before and didn't have many concrete examples. My impression now is that the article is a bit long and that there is some danger in "cut-and-paste" from another article. It seems best to have short summaries of some of these things and then link to them with a main article template or just a plain link. Part of the problem is that these will become out-of-date as people make those other articles better. I see that you've been around for a while... is there an official wikipedia opinion on "cut-and-paste" as a means of fleshing out articles on general topics? Please let me know what you think. I'm tempted to suggest that you (or somebody else) summarize these things instead of just pasting them in. Thanks in advance for considering this with me.

--Pjvpjv 02:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Maurreen,

Just saw the latest edit on Core Topics, I wanted to thank you for the work on making the tree look nice. I think the Core Topics page is now very usable. (Now, I just need to set up a Core Topics Review page for V0.5.) Thanks! Walkerma 06:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus issue

I keep having people remove the project banner from this page, apparently because he's fictional... What to do. Should we just let it drop? plange 01:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AR1

Oh dear. SimonP has added 116 new items to the Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year page. Sigh! Ordinary Person 07:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, out of the pool!

I was sad to see that Society got the whistle for the COTF pool. I had hoped that it might inch up the ladder until we got enough people interested in working on it. Too much to hope for perhaps. In any case, I have been chipping away at it and will continue to do so, since it is an important article for any encyclopedic compilation to have. 20:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That was from Sunray. Maurreen 02:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my first barnstar

!! Thank you!! It's my first award on WP :-) plange 06:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the Barnstar! I assume it's a good thing. ;-)Ordinary Person 08:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Didn't realize they were in alphabetical order. I'll keep it in mind in the future (and change the ones I already added, if you've not already done it.) john k 16:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to removing warnings

Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading. Also, from Wikipedia:Removing warnings: "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." Maurreen 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. Anyway I have received no warning from the admin etc. at all. The 3RR is fake. I don't know if I understand correctly, but it seems to be the reverse. I posted an update. Others reverted all the changes without even trying to improve or examine. After all, I have done 2 reverts. How come I have violated 3RR (and received warning)? Weird?

Anyway I don't care much. Time should be spent on improving articles, not on trivial things.--Wai Wai (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading" do you not understand? And to mark such removals as minor is further misleading. Maurreen 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand what is "warning" (in your quote) before you make your comment. Next time, for any discussion relating to the article/topic, please reply in the related talk page, instead of forking the discussions over everywhere. it is hard to follow.--Wai Wai (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of the extra category on Good Article nominations

I noticed that in this edit that you got rid of an extra category, however I noticed that the YTMND nomination wasn't copied over to the new section. Perhaps you overlooked something? —this is messedrocker (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'll be doing some diff comparisons to see if you missed anything else. —this is messedrocker (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

opinion

As an editor of Lists of topics, I'd like your opinion at Topics redesign. Thanks. --gatoatigrado 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC process and page

You mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style that you thought the RFC process and page had become too complicated. I recently re-organized the page to, I thought, make the instructions clearer, so I am interested in knowing which parts you think are too complicated so they can be fixed. (For the MoS, one can still add a line to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues, ideally linking to a specific section on the Talk page that has a short description of what is at issue. Is the form in the Example the problem?) Thanks. —Centrx→talk • 13:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COTW

Hi, thanks for your work on COTW. Maurreen 06:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and thank you! - Davodd 17:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V0.5

You once said something along the line that you'd like to see a quality international article on Scouting for V0.5. This article, Scouting is now A-class and listed at Wikipedia:Version_0.5_Nominations if you are interested.Rlevse 23:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nature

Since the article was first nominated for Core Topics COTF it has advanced in quality considerably. This is largely due to the work of Kenosis. While doing so, he has contended with the continual one issue commentary (on the talk page) of Andrew Lancaster. The latter seems to want to make the article into a philosophy of science article on the meanings of the term "Nature." As a result, I would suggest that major editorial changes to the article may not be necessary (or possible without incurring an edit war). On the other hand, the article would likely benefit from a good copyedit. However, I haven't read the article for some time to see how well it hangs together. Perhaps I should do that now. If you would also look at it in that light, we could compare notes. See you on the talk page 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC) is somehow increases that affinity. I cannot really explain that (not really being a hockey fan either), but as a Canadian—and no question that hockey is a part of our culture—there is a connection. Mind you, I have many other connections to your part of the world, so I don't want to blow the hockey angle out of proportion. Unfortunately the distance from Canada's west coast doesn't allow me to get there often enough. Sunray 20:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1.0/Featured

Maurreen-

I come to you seeking suggestions as to articles to make into good/featured/0.5/1.0. I've perused all the lists yet I can't think of a damn thing. I've worked on Louis Freeh (good) and Banking in Switzerland (failed good nom) but cannot think of any others...it's basically editors' block. This shouldn't be too difficult...but it is. Anyway, suggestions are appreciated if you can think of any. Best, Paul 17:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, countries and continents certainly are among the most vital class of articles - I will peruse the list for one that I'd like to tackle. The kind of article I'm looking for is one that there's a ton of available published info on, although as of yet I haven't found just the right one. Perhaps my next one will be Economy of Iceland...but, keep the suggestions coming if any spring to mind. Paul 17:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture is now the Core Topics COTF

You showed support for Amazon rainforest at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration. Hope you can help.

McClintock

I was surprised to read the reason for tis article being held. How many sources do you suggest should be used for such an article? At present it seemes to have quite a few. David D. (Talk) 12:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright i just realised I misunderstood the wording. I thought the messagebox was implying that this version of the article did not have enough sources. This of course made no sense, so I went back to read it more carefully. Sorry for the confusion. David D. (Talk) 12:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe

Maureen:

Sudhans are a real tribe so the article is not nonsense but it does not to be cleaned up

Trueblood78664.173.197.170 05:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied above from my user page. Maurreen 11:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen:

I checked into the Sudhan tribe and the Sadozai, there is no consenses if they are the same tribe therefore I suggest that Sudhan should be kept as a separate article rather than Sadozai. Can you comment, I will get the information including the citations to fix the article

trueblood 18:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is under Sudhan

trueblood 23:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions to Culture article

Maureen: I like the way you took your "blue pencil" to the Cultures by region section. I think it is really starting to look good. On the other hand, the section on Belief systems seems to me to be way too much. First off, at almost 2200 words (8 pages) it is overlong. Much of it is better covered in other articles. For example, instead of listing current adherents of religions, a link to Major religious groups, should suffice. We are beginning to face an article size problem. Can we somehow precis this information and provide the necessary links? Generally, I think we should be discussing the role and functions of religion in a culture, rather than giving details about the various forms of religious expression. Sunray 19:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what I hoped. However, you may be inadvertantly encouraging others less skilled with the blue pencil to do the same! Sunray 19:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a case of the salad bowl calling the melting pot black <grin>, but I was compelled to add French culture to the tidy division of the Americas in the Culture#Cultures by region. Then I thought I should give the Portuguese equal time. It all begs the question: are these neat groupings useful? See what you think. However, I can tell you that, as a Canadian, we reside somewhat uneasily in "Anglo America." Now I'm getting on my cultural imperialsim soapbox (sorry). Sunray 00:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so you wanted to get at the north/south or developed/non-developed dimension? Sunray 08:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

school counselor

I have nominated school counselor for .5 and 1.0. But I see that 1.0 is not finished yet. I believe this article is a class A article. It is peer-reviewed and cites scholarly text-book sources. It was written by a school counselor (me). It took me a long time to find somebody to peer review it. It has been peer reviwed by kukini(an admin), and an unknown. I would like to hear suggestions on how to improve the article, and help me get the ball rolling. Thanks whicky1978^talk 04:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why might not my article qualify as under .5? If only 2000 articles are included, wouldn't that basically be the FA articles?whicky1978^talk 02:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia article school counselor ranks two on Yahoo! search.whicky1978^talk 19:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It ranks 35 on MSN, and 19 on Googlewhicky1978^talk 19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will more articles be included in 1.0 than .5? How many articles will be fall under the category of education. You know that some of those country articles won't be as popular as school counselor.whicky1978^talk 14:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School cousnelor has 85 million hits. Did you try the search terms "guidance cousnelor" and "educational cousnelor" Plus all the British spellings. That makes nearly 100 million hits.whicky1978^talk 18:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are yu deleting the category culture?

I don't see any reason for deleting this category, since Classics is culture- Graeco-Roman culture. This is really awkward especially since you just reverted my reversion without bothering to explain. Tal :) 15:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, I'll add Classics to the Humanities category instead, and forget about the reversion thing... Tal :) 15:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I looked at the Category and I don't see why Indo-Iyran fits there and Classics doesn't? Is there a decesion in process to delete all articles from category: culture and move them to subcats or was your decision random? I don't see any "overpopulation" unless you consider articles and subcats under the same count? By the way,do you kow if it is okay to list an article both in a category and its subcategory? Tal :) 15:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture --> Good article

I like what you did with the "Culture by region" section. With respect to nominating the article for GA, I looked at our to do list to see what remains. The references still aren't quite up to par. Also, we need a picture for the lead, if possible. How about we do those things this week and then nominate it? Sunray 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished the "Notes" and "References" (or rather gone blind and can no longer make further changes). Now for a pic for the lead. Here are some ideas on Wikimedia Commons. I was thinking something like

Each of these show crowds of people and various aspects of culture. Do you think that something like this would be appropriate? Or do you have some other ideas? Once we have finalized the image, we should be ready to nominate the article for GA. Sunray 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or these from Commons/Dance in art, which show patterns and symbols. I thought that either

might do nicely (though I wish they were more ethnically diverse). Sunray 19:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two more from that same catalog:

And these:

Oh, and this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pieter_Bruegel_d._Ä._066.jpg

Looks good. I think we are ready to nominate it for GA. Have you gone through that process before? Sunray 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I'm not too familiar with WP:AID, so I was just wondering why you deleted the last 8 or so nominations, even though they were still in the process of getting the 4 requisite votes. AdamBiswanger1 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored them. Errabee 06:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community is now the Core Topics COTF

You showed support for Amazon rainforest at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration. Hope you can help.

WP:CBTF Hi Maureen, Thanks for your input about the Community article. I'm wanting to help revamp it, but I'm not sure what to do yet. Anyway I replied to your question at Talk:Community. Maybe we can get this ball rolling. CQ 11:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Scout

This isn't worthy of V0.5, but Kylie Minogue, Sharon Tate, and Rebecca Clarke are? You've got to be kidding. I've lost all faith in the V0.5 process. Rlevse 15:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Imperfect" that's an understatement. V0.5 has an article on prison experiments. So choice is left to luck of the draw as to which reviewer you get and lower quality B articles are chosen and yet you lose out on FA KEY articles on a highly esteemed achievement? What a farce. Rlevse 16:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Version_0.5_Nominations#FLAWED_PROCESS. It's a good spot to discuss this. Rlevse 17:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 0.5 eligibility

You're welcome. It's a shame that there is so much ill feeling over this subject when the project should be such a positive thing. Rossrs 07:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location Grid

I was trying to categorize Template:Location grid and Template:Location grid2, but i could not figure out which category they would fit under.... i just wanted them to be easier to find and easier to use. User:Raccoon Fox Talk 19:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and i agree. it will help us both out. :)

User:Raccoon Fox

Talk

23:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article changes

Hi Maurreen,

Your changes to the good article system make it more difficult to automatically mantain the list and make the promotion of articles more complex. Please discuss these changes on the good articles talk page first.

Cedars 00:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geography Category

Thank you for informing me of that miscategorization. It has been corrected. Mappychris 01:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)mappychris[reply]

Importance

Hi Maurreen,

Good to see you back and active with lots of ideas again! I'd always imagined we would use the same Top/High/Medium/Low system for the whole of Wikipedia. In other words you might get Foobar ranked as "Top" by WikiProject:Foobars but as perhaps medium by us at WP1.0. For something like this, take a look at the TWO importance rankings in this example. However, you might be right, maybe we need to define different terms so that people don't confuse relative importance with absolute importance. I'd also imagined these as being based on powers of ten - the inherent fuzziness in such choices (resulting in lots of hurt feelings last week) make something based on powers of two (doubling) unworkable IMHO. Could you please give me a link to Silence's proposal? I've been away from Wikipedia for a couple of days and probably missed some things! I see we now have over 16,000 articles now assessed, pretty exciting, eh?! Walkerma 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community

Hi back at you. I note that "we" have been burning the midnight oil of late. I enjoyed our collaboration on Culture (which I am still tinkering with a bit -- see what you think of the ending). Community is a bit tough for me at the moment. It has been subjected to various threads in the past and I can't yet see how to stitch it all together. CQ has suggested an outline, which looks promising. I was wondering about "we." Is it the royal we? And I have a second question for you:

Admin nomination?

You have been very active and productive as an editor. I would like to nominate you as an administrator. Would you accept if I did? Sunray 18:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that CQ 19:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the bold text from your name on that list. Sunray 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask which 3rd opinion rule this does not follow?

*Lance Armstrong - admin removed factual information about drug abuse allegations as published in a book [7] [8] [9] or as noted in our own Greg LeMond article.[10] [11] [12] Argues inclusion violates Wikipedia rules on biographies of living people. 12:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Socafan 13:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer Disagreement about drug abuse allegations against Lance Armstrong - factual information or violation of Wikipedia rules on biographies of living people? Socafan 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My wording at WP:3O was somewhat imprecise and underinformed. The overall activity did not follow the spirit of the page, if you follow me. I can give details if you like.

Either Disagreement about including drug abuse allegations against Lance Armstrong or Disagreement about application of [[WP:BLP|Wikipedia rules on biographies of living people] would be better.

I believe that your original listing was made in good faith and that it was relatively short and neutral. But the reply did not; that's not your fault. The reversions aren't helpful any which way. It appears that you two have a larger problem. I have some doubt that a third opinion will resolve the situation.

Also, I just noticed the above discussion. It looks like someone else is already involved. Maurreen 13:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind clarification. Unfortunately, there has still happened no real discussion at Lance Armstrong. The third individual that posted on my talk page also left a couple of comments at the other user's talk page but did not help top resolve the conflict. Maybe you could? You do not need to be a cycling expert, I am none, either. Socafan 13:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on fixing the content. That entire section was POV tagged for very obvious reasons. I have removed much of the redundancy and (I hope) all the innuendo. The book still needs to go in, but we need reliable sources discussing it and its credibility first. Feel free to pitch in, Maurreen. Just zis Guy you know? 14:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just make it more POV towards your preferred version. Socafan 14:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 1.0

I agree that we might be waiting a long time if we followed the FAC process. However, I think we do need a standard to shoot for. Initially that could be GA status. I've responded to your status and options comments in that vein. Sunray 21:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Types of community

Would you be able to take a look at my additions to the Types of community section? Feel free to be unwaveringly critical if you don't care for it (after all you've never held back before). I'm particularly interested in your take on the "Faith community" example. I wanted to generalize about faith communities, but realize that with Bush administration policies related to "Faith-based communitiy development," it may be contentious. Sunray 01:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maurreen. I can't say enough about the great work you and Sunray are doing on the Community article! As I said before in other spots, I think it's important for the Core topics to integrate well betwixt and amongst main articles, categories, portals, etc.. I made a tree and a list to try to help sort out all of this stuff. Tell me (you too, Sunray - I know you're watching :) if I'm on the right track or not. I'm also wondering how far from getting out of "Start" class we are in terms of WP:1.0. • CQ 16:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Information Technology

Why did you remove Category:Technology? It seems like IT is obviously a subset of tech; the article backs this up. Brian Jason Drake 10:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

How would you suggest it be "more clearly attributed?" Here's the quote which apprears at the bottom of the page of the citation given:

It is now clear that culture change is very complex. It has far ranging causes and effects. In order to understand all of the manifestations of change, we must take a holistic approach to studying cultures and the environments in which they exist. In other words, we must assume that human existence can be understood only as a multifaceted whole. Only then can we hope to understand the phenomena of culture change.

I had put it in as a direct quote, but thought it best to not end the article with a quote. So I paraphrased it and gave the source. I believe that is in line with academic standards and Wikipedia's policies. The statement is unremarkable for an anthropologist or sociologist, but probably is something that the average reader had not really thought of (hence wars, etc.). I will change the "must be looked at" to "may best be looked at." What else should we do? Sunray 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. I've qualified the statement along the lines you suggest. Sunray 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the standards could place more emphasis on readability and the "average reader." However, that message is present in current Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so there is no excuse for those who write overly academic articles. That having been said, "Culture's" tone does tend to be somewhat "academic." It reads like an introductory anthropology text. I don't take any responsibility for that as I was just an editor, not one of the original writers. I'm not sure whether I think that is a good thing or a bad thing. The article is no doubt challenging, in some ways, for the average reader. However, the message (reiterated in the last paragraph) is: "Culture is complex and difficult to grasp. Drink deep..." Sunray 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least 100% improved. What is interesting about our collaboration is the way that our skills complement one another. I would include the example of your comments on the last paragraph of the Culture article, which pushed it to a much improved level. The one exception to this may be that we both could be better spellers! :-) Sunray 20:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement

Maurreen,

I noticed that you copied a lot of information from a number of different sources to flesh out the article on measurement. I agree with this to a certain extent as the article was very theoretical before and didn't have many concrete examples. My impression now is that the article is a bit long and that there is some danger in "cut-and-paste" from another article. It seems best to have short summaries of some of these things and then link to them with a main article template or just a plain link. Part of the problem is that these will become out-of-date as people make those other articles better. I see that you've been around for a while... is there an official wikipedia opinion on "cut-and-paste" as a means of fleshing out articles on general topics? Please let me know what you think. I'm tempted to suggest that you (or somebody else) summarize these things instead of just pasting them in. Thanks in advance for considering this with me.

--Pjvpjv 02:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Maurreen,

Just saw the latest edit on Core Topics, I wanted to thank you for the work on making the tree look nice. I think the Core Topics page is now very usable. (Now, I just need to set up a Core Topics Review page for V0.5.) Thanks! Walkerma 06:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus issue

I keep having people remove the project banner from this page, apparently because he's fictional... What to do. Should we just let it drop? plange 01:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AR1

Oh dear. SimonP has added 116 new items to the Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year page. Sigh! Ordinary Person 07:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, out of the pool!

I was sad to see that Society got the whistle for the COTF pool. I had hoped that it might inch up the ladder until we got enough people interested in working on it. Too much to hope for perhaps. In any case, I have been chipping away at it and will continue to do so, since it is an important article for any encyclopedic compilation to have. 20:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That was from Sunray. Maurreen 02:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my first barnstar

!! Thank you!! It's my first award on WP :-) plange 06:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the Barnstar! I assume it's a good thing. ;-)Ordinary Person 08:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Didn't realize they were in alphabetical order. I'll keep it in mind in the future (and change the ones I already added, if you've not already done it.) john k 16:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to removing warnings

Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading. Also, from Wikipedia:Removing warnings: "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." Maurreen 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. Anyway I have received no warning from the admin etc. at all. The 3RR is fake. I don't know if I understand correctly, but it seems to be the reverse. I posted an update. Others reverted all the changes without even trying to improve or examine. After all, I have done 2 reverts. How come I have violated 3RR (and received warning)? Weird?

Anyway I don't care much. Time should be spent on improving articles, not on trivial things.--Wai Wai (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading" do you not understand? And to mark such removals as minor is further misleading. Maurreen 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand what is "warning" (in your quote) before you make your comment. Next time, for any discussion relating to the article/topic, please reply in the related talk page, instead of forking the discussions over everywhere. it is hard to follow.--Wai Wai (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of the extra category on Good Article nominations

I noticed that in this edit that you got rid of an extra category, however I noticed that the YTMND nomination wasn't copied over to the new section. Perhaps you overlooked something? —this is messedrocker (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'll be doing some diff comparisons to see if you missed anything else. —this is messedrocker (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

opinion

As an editor of Lists of topics, I'd like your opinion at Topics redesign. Thanks. --gatoatigrado 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC process and page

You mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style that you thought the RFC process and page had become too complicated. I recently re-organized the page to, I thought, make the instructions clearer, so I am interested in knowing which parts you think are too complicated so they can be fixed. (For the MoS, one can still add a line to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues, ideally linking to a specific section on the Talk page that has a short description of what is at issue. Is the form in the Example the problem?) Thanks. —Centrx→talk • 13:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COTW

Hi, thanks for your work on COTW. Maurreen 06:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and thank you! - Davodd 17:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V0.5

You once said something along the line that you'd like to see a quality international article on Scouting for V0.5. This article, Scouting is now A-class and listed at Wikipedia:Version_0.5_Nominations if you are interested.Rlevse 23:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nature

Since the article was first nominated for Core Topics COTF it has advanced in quality considerably. This is largely due to the work of Kenosis. While doing so, he has contended with the continual one issue commentary (on the talk page) of Andrew Lancaster. The latter seems to want to make the article into a philosophy of science article on the meanings of the term "Nature." As a result, I would suggest that major editorial changes to the article may not be necessary (or possible without incurring an edit war). On the other hand, the article would likely benefit from a good copyedit. However, I haven't read the article for some time to see how well it hangs together. Perhaps I should do that now. If you would also look at it in that light, we could compare notes. See you on the talk page 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Break

Maurreen,

Enjoy your break, I'm sure you need it! Thanks for getting so many core things organised this summer, and for giving helpful feedback. Cheers, Walkerma 17:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noooo, you can't go! Just kidding (sort of) - enjoy your well-deserved break and look forward to your return! Thanks for all that you do! plange 17:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breaks are good. May you enjoy fair weather and supportive relationships. Sunray 18:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You helped choose John McDaniel (American football) (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 12 Nov 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF) as this week's WP:AID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week John McDaniel (American football) (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 12 Nov 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF) was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Davodd 17:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]