User talk:Maurreen/archive 4

Changed Title

I changed the title of "Culture defines politics" to Cultural imprint on politics. I think this is a winner of a title for the subject material. I hope you agree. Let me know what you think? Thanks for your consideration and time. WHEELER 19:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am thinking that to make it an even better title is to title it "Cultural imprinting on politics". Is that okay. "Cultural imprinting" is an adverb and not a straight verb. Is this okay for you? And does it sound better and match encyclopaedic concerns? let me know please.WHEELER 15:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up...

I haven't been active here for a while, and don't foresee that changing any time forseeably... so I've been cleaning my user space, and was wondering if you would like User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC to be moved to your space? It is still occasionally being attacked by Netoholic, though not for the past month. Best contact me at n:User:Amgine... - Amgine 05:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Doing well... I think I'll leave that where it is then, since it's linked to a half-dozen ways.

- Amgine 05:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

Maurreen, could I ask why you break up chronological archives? It makes things very hard to find. The Post-invasion Iraq archives were very mixed up and material seemed to be missing. Do you have a particular reason for doing things that way? SlimVirgin 06:52, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

There were 10,000 words missing. I don't know whether it was you or not, but it may be connected to the habit of moving sections of Talk pages around. Do you have a particular reason for archiving in a non-chronological order? It makes it very hard for editors coming after you to find anything. SlimVirgin 07:04, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Maurreen, you've done great work on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you'd be interesting in a nomination for adminship. Neutrality^talk 06:19, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing, then. Remember, much of the opposition was due to your inexperience at the time. Maybe in a few months. Regards --Neutrality^talk 07:14, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

MoS

Maurreen, do you happen to know whether the MoS is policy or a guideline, and where in Wikipedia it states which it is? Best, SlimVirgin 11:54, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Maurreen, thanks, I found the policy page eventually. The MoS is a guideline. There's policy, semi-policy, and guidelines. I was asking because Jguk put the MoS into the policy category, but so far as I can tell without consensus. Do you happen to know where I'd find the Talk archives from around September-October 2004? That's when it was done, so I'd to see whether there was any discussion about it. Don't go to any trouble to look, though, but if you happen to know that would be helpful. Best, SlimVirgin 23:57, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen, thank you, that's very helpful. The person who added the text to the article saying it was policy was User:Dcoetzee. I asked him how he knew it was policy, but it seems he added it only because he wanted passing editors not to make radical changes without discussion. Following that, Jguk simply added the policy category on his own initiative. Anyway, I think it's sorted out now. It's a guideline according to the policy page at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. [1] Best, SlimVirgin 07:13, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

The issue I've been discussing is adding a rider to the usage and spelling section. It says: "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country." I would like to add that people are not regarded as being "specific" to a particular country, unless they hold office. So, for example, just because John Smith was born in Canada does not mean he has to be written about in Canadian-English, unless he becomes prime minister of Canada, in which case he does. But I'm being opposed. SlimVirgin 07:23, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the EU issue; I'd like to think about it. It would be useful to know when it was added and what the consensus was, so if you know that, it would be helpful, but again don't go to any trouble. I don't agree with it, and I certainly wouldn't want to see it extended beyond treaties etc. It's true that EU documents use British English but that's only because they're written by British translators, and I'm not sure that ought to force all Wikipedia editors to use BE to write about any EU treaty or institution. SlimVirgin 07:38, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there were only the two, so s/he was clearly a sock. I don't really mind - I was just curious, and I did give in in the end, so dear old Bernard is now in British English. SlimVirgin 08:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot: also these [2] SlimVirgin 07:42, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

New wiki?

Sounds interesting. What did you have in mind? SlimVirgin 08:19, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen, I tried to leave this message for you twice yesterday, but after saving both times, checked and it wasn't there. So this is third time lucky. ;-) Just to say, I find your idea very interesting, and I think people would love it. But it would be a huge project. Do you have any thoughts as to how to start it? SlimVirgin 19:15, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry not to get back to you sooner but I've spread myself a little too thin here recently, so I'm finding it hard to keep up with everything. I do love your idea, but can't quite see a way to get it started. There are a couple of editors who have edited some of the journalism pages, who may be in journalism themselves. Did you have any luck with anyone else? We could put up a note somewhere asking for anyone who's interested, but you may not want to announce it widely as it's a good idea. SlimVirgin 08:31, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion

I've taken the liberty of moving the discussion you pasted to Wikipedia:Third opinion to Wikipedia talk:Third opinion, and of putting up a draft format at the project page itself. I'd appreciate it if you'll have a look and tell me if you like it. — Itai (f&t) 21:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you like my formatting. (The thing that I'm most concerned about is whether the Reasoning paragraph cannot be simply integrated into the introduction.) Anyway, it might be wise to note that I'm going to be away for a week as of tomorrow, which means that - unless you're willing to implement this yourself - it will take some time until this is integrated into Wikipedia procedures. Which is good, as it means there's plenty of time for feedback to build up. — Itai (f&t) 08:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. — Itai (f&t) 08:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Transport(ation)

Maurreen,

I was trying to be helpful - Transportation is a disambiguation page - the main article you were referring to is at Transport. Also, and unconnected to the first point, you will note that there is no "first major contributor rule". WP:MOS refers to that as a "last resort" test, and, of course, you and SV have decided that WP:MOS isn't policy, but only a take-it-or-leave-it guideline anyway. Kind regards, jguk 19:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Wiki Q

You mean a non-Wikinews wiki? DAVODD 08:19, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

You're missed already

Please come back to the page, Maurreen. We'll either have an agreement soon, or we'll take a break as you suggested, so either way it will be over soon, and the changes, if any, will be minor. But they may loosen things up just a little, which I think you want too, so please stick with it just a tad longer. Best, SlimVirgin 10:13, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the latest news is that we appear to have reached an agreement. Jguk has agreed to allow a sentence to the effect that not all people are topics, because people might have lived in more than one country and so on, so it's now just a question of finding the right words, which I suspect will not take long. It's nowhere near as much as I wanted, but I'm prepared to take it. As for the EU thing, I am prepared to agree to that as an exchange, though you should have input too, and particularly about the OAS thing, as I'm not too bothered about that either way. But if you've really had enough, then don't feel you have to comment, because you'll drive yourself nuts otherwise. The OAS can always be added later, and the EU thing removed if you don't want it, so don't fret. It's only an encyclopedia after all! (Something I should tell myself too.) ;-) SlimVirgin 10:45, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wiki

Oh, I meant not to announce it publicly before it's ready to start, in case the idea gets stolen. I didn't mean never to tell anyone, LOL. Otherwise it would be just you, me, and maybe my dog. We'd have fewer problems with styles of English, mind you. SlimVirgin 08:33, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Journo wiki

Thanks for the note, I think it's a good idea. Some possible content:

• AP Stylebook type stuff, but would be Creative Commons so could be printed and used all over
• Expanding on some existing content in Wikipedia, such as Journalism fraud
• Expanding on Disinfopedia type content, such as a guide to newspapers and media groups, from Sulzburger to Scaife
• Case studies

This could be part of WikiCities, or could be a WikiBook, or another project altogether. Let me know what you think. Fuzheado | Talk 17:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC

Hi. I don't know if this matters to you (and I apologize if it doesn't), but Jguk has recently been adding speedy notices to that page. Regards, Vacuum c 01:34, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen. Vacuum is a troll, as evidenced by the complete lack of useful contributions Vacuum has made (see [3]). He appears to be here only to stir up trouble. Kind regards, jguk 06:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Maurreen. I completely agree with you about your right to keep the page. However, in the interest of not escalating matters, perhaps you should just let Jguk keep his speedy notice there until you reach a resolution. It's highly unlikely it'll actually get deleted, with the controversy, and if it is, you can just undelete it with your sysop powers. Thanks, Vacuum c 16:30, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians:Military

Can you edit the "Category" page and give standards or qualifications that one can label oneself a "Wikipedian" military. Is it one who was in the military? Or only edits military articles? Or just likes the military? Can you give parameters for inclusion on the category page. Thanks. and whether I qualify, I might join it.WHEELER 18:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Got another question. I tried to put my name first like [Category:Wikipedian military/WHEELER] and then I tried [Category:Wikipedian military/User: WHEELER/WHEELER] just so that my name would list aphabetically. Is there something in the code that prevents just the listing by names in the category. Please let me know. Thanks.WHEELER 16:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Figured it out. Have the members type something similar to this: [[User:WHEELER|WHEELER]] and it shows up aphabetically. I forgot to use the "|" in the command code. WHEELER 18:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Journawiki

This is looking really good, Maurreen. Congratulations on pulling it together so fast; I'm impressed. Perhaps you or someone could write about it for Wikinews, which might attract people outside Wikipedia, and you could also try putting details on journalists' mailing lists and websites. I have a query for you about this sentence (regarding the liberation of Buchenwald): "At six o'clock that evening, the first American tank arrived, and behind it the Sixth Armored Division of the U.S. Third Army." Is this the right way to put it: the U.S. Third Army? In the source I took it from, it said "Third U.S. Army," which didn't sound right, but I'm not sure. SlimVirgin 00:56, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Maurreen, that's very helpful. I'm going to take another look through Journawiki as soon as I get the time, probably tomorrow, and will look to see whether there's anything I can usefully add to it. You've done a great job. SlimVirgin 03:39, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Poetry

Hi Maurreen: Masterly edit of the Poetry form section. Good job! --Theo (Talk) 08:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the difference

Yeah, I thought so, too. Thanks. –Hajor 05:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Currency

Are you aware there is already a Category:Currencies? Either the two categories should be merged, or there should be a "See also" link each of the categories going to the other category. —Lowellian (talk) 03:29, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Maurreen, this is to thank you for supporting me in my adminship nomination, which I appreciate very much. Best, SlimVirgin 03:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion

I've just seen your March 5 note on Wikipedia talk:Third opinion... Took me some time, I know. Yes, this page is probably ready to be operational, although more feedback would have been nice. So... What do you say: should I (or we) take the plunge (remove the warning at the beginning of the page, add it to Wikipedia talk:Resolving disputes, and place a notice on Wikipedia:Goings-on), or should I place another notice on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and wait for more feedback? — Itai (f&t) 15:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Economics theories ?

The category you created yesterday, Category:Economics theories, isn't that about the same stuff as Category:Economic theories? —Gabbe 11:45, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Accounting reform

You changed the categorization of accounting reform from economics to accounting. But the article deals primarily with reforming the national accounts (GDP, National Disposable Income, etc.) and very little, if anything, with accounting. I think that economics is the proper category, but don't want to move it back without talking to you first. Maybe you know something I don't know.--Fredrik Coulter 04:18, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I wish I could help you, but the little economics I know I learned 15 years ago as a freshman in college. Maybe macroeconomics, since it generally deals with nations using something other than GDP to show the world how wonderful they are. (As you can tell, I'm not a fan.) But I'm an accountant, not an economist, so I'd have no real idea. Sorry.--Fredrik Coulter 04:52, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring an old discussion

I've been so bold as to refactor the comments you made way back on User talk:JRM/Countdown deletion. I'm thinking of reviving this proposal, in a new form, and I'd like the new talk page to be a refactoring zone. However, I'm aware this goes against de facto Wikiquette and I can't retroactively instate it, so if you find you don't agree with my edits, please feel free to replace them with something better. JRM 15:52, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Working together on Economics & Finance categories

We discussed this a few weeks ago... I'm making progress on cleaning the Finance category... moving articles from the main cat to appropriate sub cats. I'll occasionally dump articles into the main Economics category, since that seems to be where you're working lately. I know you're trying to clean up that main cat, so I try to limit my dumping. Feel free to do the reverse... I'll keep cleaning things out of the main Finance cat, so don't worry about detailed subcategorization unless you want to. Feco 00:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Commas

Hi, there. Sorry to hear (per your user page) that the wikistress is getting to you. I have a couple of questions:

1. Your dates page says that the CMS favors "year first." I'm assuming that's a typo for day first, which is what my 14th Ed. recommends (but I do remember hearing that they were planning to cave in and go with mmm dd, yyyy, in a later edition).
2. Whenever I come across language like "Espanola, New Mexico is the world rhubarb capital," I have an uncontrollable urge to stick the misssing comma in. Am I being unnecessarily pedantic? Has usage overtaken me? (I sidestep the related question with "Espanola, New Mexico declared itself the world rhubarb capital on March 4, 2002 and has not looked back since" by using the dd mmm yyyy format, of course.)

If and when you have a moment. Thanks. –Hajor 16:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It's good to know I'm not the only one putting in those missing commas (and it's also reassuring to know that the CMS still advocates dd mmm yyyy: I have a soft spot for underdogs and lost causes). I'd suggest a note be added on the point to the relevant articles -- MoS commas section, city naming conventions -- as long as it's not going to set off another holy war ("no one does it like that nowadays..." etc.) I see the MoS crowd have just found a new bone of contention, in the form of the capitalization rules for headers; dunno, professional deformation and all that, but sometimes you've just got to kowtow to house style, even though you don't like it. That, plus the fact that your time would be better spent writing articles instead of whinging. Cheers, –Hajor 04:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aboslutely. As you'll have seen in my comments above, I thought it was a formal/traditional/strict vs. informal/modern/sloppy question. I wasn't expecting UK vs. US to raise its head again, because I honestly don't believe that is the issue. –Hajor 18:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Manual of Style and Capitalization

About a month ago I was trying to find out why the incorrect capitalization rule that is in the Manual of Style is there. So far nobody has responded to my requests to posts a citation from a manual of style support the Wikipedia rule. Today I went over onto the offensive over that matter.

I did an internet search and found a quote from the The United States Government Print Office Style Manual 2000 and another quote in the Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Ed. that support my position. I have therefore posted those quotes on the sub-page talk page and on the talk page of the main manual of style page. I have also found out which user put the 'rule' onto the site in the first place and challenged them to support what they wrote with a citation. I await the reply with interest. David Newton 17:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David Helvarg

Hi Maurreen: I have just finished tinkering with the biography of a journalist David Helvarg. The stub was on VfD and I felt that he deserved better (even though I knew nothing of him then). This is the first time that I have written a biography of another journalist and I have been feeling my way (the other biographies of journalists seem too varied, and often inadequate, to be much help as exemplars). Could you please cast your informed eye over it and make appropriate improvements or comments before I submit it for peer review? Thanks --Theo (Talk) 21:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Maurreen: I made the changes that you suggested and have listed the article on peer review. Thank you very much for all your help. --Theo (Talk) 10:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Journalism and Category:News trade

...are listed on WP:CFD under April 21. At least for me. Perhaps due to the new funky template thing, you need to reload or purge the page cache or something to get them to show up for you. -- Beland 02:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ive reverted your edits to the news trade and journalism templates. Reason - Use articles not Categories, and most categoriees should have articles. Maybe you could write up something about visual journalism. Infotainment is a valid concept in journalism as a term of reference for non-Journalistic entities within the news trade. Why did you remove it? Business news likewise. And last but not least the comment "sometimes" is out of place for an article series template. Regards, -SV|t|add 09:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looking at Journalism Project

Maurreen, thanks for doing good, sound, work on the "Journalism beat" here on WP. I've not worked on a "project" as such, but I'll look into it and posted some comments there at the Journalism Project. I'm not sure I understand what that is, but if it has to do with bringing some kind fo meta-organization to the overall heading "journalism" that that's a good idea. I hope it will be very neutral, factual and reflective of the normative standards extant in the industry...I'm sure with your eye on, it will go in that direction. Yours, Calicocat 14:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Serial comma

A couple of users are trying to strike all guidance on the serial comma from the Manual of Style, saying they've reached a consensus to do so. Could you comment on the talk page? I know you've been involved in that in the past. I know there was a vote not so long ago where the majority opinion was to keep as is. Do you know where that's archived? Jonathunder 21:56, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

---

RE: My posting in the latest WPt:MoS serial comma debate…

:Your comments are well done. Maurreen 07:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Maurreen. I thought they might have been somewhat overcooked myself. But I find useful discussion on this subject quite rare, and I long for a happy medium. ☺ I admire your patience and persistence in working on this meal prepared by far too many cooks. Jeff Q (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II

Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 08:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Hi Maureen, I saw you chimed in helpfully on Jguk's spurious RfC against Whig. I'm not sure if you saw that Jguk created one on me also—mostly with the same free-floating semi-accusations. A few details differ, but I was wondering if you'd have time to chime in on my RfC with a similar comment to that you made on Whig's. It probably does't matter much, since the whole WP "gaming" is silly to start with... but just in case uninvolved editors happen upon it, another voice makes the situation more clear. All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Looking for help on a major wiki project

Hey :) I was wondering if you'd be interesting in helping out with www.Knowmore.org, a corporation search wiki we're trying to get off the ground. We could DEFINATELY use some people that know how to make a wiki community great & the site is almost a blank slate at this point. It's been heavily customized and is designed to help responsible consumers enter any product or company name and immediatly find information about that co. (the main focus of the wiki is corporate & political information in a much more specialized way then wikipedia currently offers) Let me know if you're interested! aim: knowmoreorg or bernard@knowmore.org

David Helvarg FAC

You gave me some great help with David Helvarg. It has now been hugely rewritten and I would welcome your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Helvarg/archive1. --Theo (Talk) 15:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

RfAr re: Styles

Please see [4] if you are interested. Whig 09:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

David Helvarg revisited

Thanks for your polishing tweaks to David Helvarg. I think that it is now ready to go back to WP:FAC. --Theo (Talk) 10:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theo RFA

And now thank you for your remarkably prompt support of my RFA nomination. I am astonished that you beat the nominator in entering your support. --Theo (Talk) 09:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And now, thank you for your congratulations. I refuse to accept your apology for all the help that you gave me … I cannot accept anything so unneeded. This is a volunteer project: any help is a boon and I found your comments and changes to be valuable triggers. I hope to work with you again on something.—Theo (Talk) 18:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. Since you've been previously nominated I added an '*' immediately before your name in this list. If for any reason you're NOT interested, my apologies and please remove the '*' (you could entirely remove yourself from the list also, if you'd like). I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board

I have now reopened the notice board, if you are interested in contributing new topics, or in nominating articles for the Collaboration of the Week, which also received a revamp. Please post on the project's talk page if you show interest. Mike H 02:47, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Era proposal

Well, I finally bit the bullet and wrote up an official proposal. Maybe you could offer some feedback if you get a chance. Cheers. Kaldari 22:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: News Trade

Nothing personal against the author of the article, but, yes, I think News trade should be VfDed. Calicocat 16:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Military Parlance

Thanks for your edits on this - it all helps! :) A curate's egg 21:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep editing Maurreen! :) A curate's egg 17:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category economics game theory

Maurreen - I've noticed that you are creating a category called economics game theory and moving some game theory articles there. Is there a reason why you are doing this? Game theory is already a sub-category of economics, why the name change? best, --Kzollman 18:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen - Good you noticed that! I think probably the appropriate action would just be to remove the economics category from those pages and leave the game theory one. The reason I'm worried is that game theory is highly interdisciplinary (involving sociology, economics, biology, political science, and philosophy) and so I wouldn't want to mislead people by making a special category "economics game theory". Thanks for your quick response, and I'll try to keep my eye out for those duplicate categories! best, --Kzollman 18:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain removing category economics

You removed category economics from Cycle of poverty - why? Scott Ritchie 22:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Landscape ecology

I was wondering why you removed cat:geography from this article. Guettarda 1 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)

I was wondering why you removed many articles from the geography category. Cheers, Daniel Collins 1 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)

Subcats. Ok. I think it's entirely reasonable for there to be a physical geography subcat. I'll assist to the degree I'm qualified. Cheers, Daniel Collins 1 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

Are You the Person I Need?

• Hi! I see from watchlist you changed 'category' on BoHai Sea, to physical geology so are you a guru on categories? The Bo Hai is not really a sea, nor a Bay, though the article equates the two, misplacing the real bay, which is indeed part of the Bo Hai... itself a Gulf technically, or so I understand. To make matters even more confusing, I gather 'Hai' is indeed Chinese for 'Sea', making all clear as 'Mud'. <G>
• So what's your actual expertise — fixing a red link, or a real life geographer? Other?
  • If you are a category guru or geography specialist, that's not the only place that 'invented at need' copycat category was posted that evening, so things should be adjusted, one way or another.
• I wanted (meant) to get a hold of someone on that issue, and did post a talk page note, as I copied the 'category type', as it were, while trying to straighten (criss-cross) geo-political references, but got diverted in an expansion or three or four during the week.
  • In any case, there needs to be some category consistancy geo-region to geo-region, or so I would argue. Please advise. Thanks!

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)

reply:

• The category you replaced: 'Bays of China', should, of course, be a sub-category of 'Geography of China'. I MODELED 'Bays of China' on another 'Bays of _______', category which I'd have to retrace to tell you what '________' was to be certain, but I think it was Australia. Perhaps the sub-category 'Bays of China' is one you should add under 'Geography of China', and revert your original change. Perhaps there is a 'Bays of the Pacific', or 'Bays of the World', but I don't know how to check. I am fairly new to Wiki. Hence, I was hoping you knew for sure which categories and subcategories were supposed to be under the project guidelines, and which were perhaps omitted or overlooked as categories by the people who were working China related things.
• What I do know for certain, is that there is a 'Bays of _________' category or subcategory, and I happened across it, so modeled 'Bays of China' on it, which gave a red link.
• To fix the redlink, one could fix the Bays of China by replacing it with 'Geography of China', but that might then be inconsistant with the other 'Bays of _________' I did see. So I was hoping you knew which way it was supposed to work, or at least who to ask. You would know that if someone had asked you to change my original, but not if you changed it when you saw it as a red link (on your own).

Thankyou for your time and answer. I hope that I made the small issue clear. My view is that 'Bays of China' is a proper sub-category of Geography of China, and should be added there; that of course means you should revert your change to the article as well. If not, the other two Bays on BoHai Sea need changed as well. No matter what, at least two changes are needed.

• Please let me know what you decide and do. Thanks again.

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 06:28 (UTC)

News_management

Hi. When you have a moment, would you please take a look at News_management? Thanks. Hope you had a good holiday. Calicocat 3 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)

Jguk

The temporary injunction is not listed, but as the case is closed, is no longer in effect anyway. Fred Bauder July 3, 2005 18:51 (UTC)

Project Journalism

I'd like to make a simple template that would advertise the project which we can place on Talk pages of related articles. Do you know how to do that? The whole namespace thing is new to me and I don't want to make a mistake. It could say something like, "A new project on journalism is underway, participants needed" with link to project page. Calicocat 5 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)

You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's WP:ACID winner

---

Come to my userpage!--Yo Mama 5000 6 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

IDRIVE

Thanks for offering your help on the Improvement Drive. It is still new enough for me to enjoy doing it. Right now, on the other hand, it looks like there might be an edit war coming up, because one user, SimonP,has removed all of the nomination templates on COTW and IDrive. I placed them all on the main page, according to a discussion on the COTW discussion page. (This was also done on COTW nominations.) Actually I came to the Collaboration pages because they seemed edit-war-free, but let's be optimistic, the problem may be solved in peace. Some people have set up a vote on whether the templates should go on the article page or the talk page, here: Wikipedia:Template locations.

Also, you voted for refugee, so you routinely get this template:

You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's WP:ACID winner

--Fenice 18:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Template designs

Hi Maurreen. I'd really appreciate it if you could cast your eye over my template suggestion and pass some comments. The main thing I'm after is whether you think that the organisation would be appropriate for a WP:TS competition similar to the talk page one. I'm still trying to think of how to sort it all out (and am waiting until after the new template location page has done its business). Perhaps having separate polls for each category? violet/riga (t) 22:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote!

You've shown your opposition of Wikipedia:Disruptive User, but you didn't vote. Please do. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 22:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Units

Thanks for letting me know. B. is an inveterate POV pusher about this issue, making only conversion edits to articles with no other input. He recently lost an adminship nomination because of it. Also, be careful when you read any descriptions he gives of situations or of other pages. He distorts and mispresents. If it's an issue you care about, check it out for yourself rather than relying on him. My position on this is that it should be up to the editors on the page to decide, except for science articles, where something might hinge on it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

Can you take over the Improvement Drive? Violetriga has started an editwar (on templates), the last one I ever had on Wikipedia, I am leaving. Best wishes --Fenice 21:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Statistics is an academic discipline

Why delete the "academic disciplines" category from statistics? I looked at that category page, and it seems to be simply a list of academic disciplines. Obviously statistics (in the sense of that word that is singular rather than plural, so that one says "Statistics is..." and not "Statistics are...") is an academic discipline. In most universities, one of the academic departments is a department of statistics. Michael Hardy 23:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

... and I see from your user page that you're in Raleigh, NC. The Department of Statistics at North Carolina State University is perhaps the only one of the academic departments at NCSU that is considered world-class. Nearby, at Duke University, the Institute of Statistics and Decision Sciences is one of the foremost departments of statistics in the world. And at UNC in Chapel Hill, the Department of Statistics is the oldest department devoted primarily to that discipline in the USA, also a world-class academic department. Anywhere in the Research Triangle, you hardly have to do more than inhale to detect the presence of a HUGE per-capita number of people with PhD's in statistics living in that area; you can't help noticing it even if you're not looking for it. So I'm surprised if you think statistics is not among the academic disciplines. Michael Hardy 23:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

... and now I've put that category back. Many of the fields listed there should be in subcategories, but statistics should not. Michael Hardy 00:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I deleted article from "academic disciplines" because I think it's better in a subcategory. But no biggie. Maurreen 00:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Which subcategory and why? I would think the fact that most universities have a department devoted only to that particular discipline would count for quite a lot. Michael Hardy 00:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:IDRIVE templates

You wrote on my talk-page:

I appreciate that you only made subtle changes to the templates. But I wish you had at least waited, given that they are not listed among "Included templates" at Wikipedia:Template standardisation and that I had asked at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation for a pause in standardization for discussion. Maurreen 03:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

From the conversations on that page, I get the impression that you have misunderstood the purpose of the restricted list attached to the vote, which was actually the much-reduced set of templates for which a demonstration version was to be prepared for each style under consideration. The template you refer to is intended to appear on talk-pages and should therefore fall within the purview of WP:TS. You will note that:

• I preserved the most distinctive visual property, the carefully-chosen colour
• I did not alter those templates not intended for talk-pages

So far as I understand the situation at present, all templates intended for use exclusively on talk-pages should use the agreed standard, with some leeway for customisation.

The ultimate reason for the standardisation drive is that users will be able to control which notices they want to see and how prominently. This is best done through the application of a standard which gives such control.

HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Infotainment

Dont "revert" a developed article back to a stone-age version of it without explanation —or with explanation, for that matter. -SV|t

CFD

OK. You know what to do with the links, etc. Thanks for the apology, and sorry if I appeared to be rude. Nice work on WP:JOURN, BTW. -SV|t 18:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

:) - SV|t 18:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC) PS. thought about adding a talk link to your sig in prefs? Something like [[User:Maurreen|Maur]][[User talk:Maurreen|reen]], etc. (click raw sig)

Its done in your preferences. Whatever you add will replace the auto. (DFT check "raw.") -SV

Loose cannon?

I am totally baffled by your mass deletions or conversions from the agriculture category. I've looked in vain for any rationale or explanation, and conclude in the absence of any, that this is borderline vandalism. It takes away others' work, and it is hard to restore, since it disappears entirely from the history of the category page. I see from your talk page you've also made a number of arbitrary deletions or changes in other categories. In a few cases you converted to a valid category, but why can't you just add it rather than delete an already valid category? I don't have time to run behind you and reinsert, so in the future I'm going to just revert your deletions or conversions in the area, UNLESS accompanied by a good explanation on the talk page of the subject.Pollinator 20:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

WP:IDRIVE templates - part II

Hello Maurreen! Thanks for letting me know that South America is this weeks' improvement drive. I have already got some new information to the article, but I expect to get (hopefully) a lot more until the end of the week. I would just like to mention: I noticed that when you put the voter template in my talk page, use inserted it as {{AIDvoter}} and not as {{subst:AIDvoter}} as I expected. I might be mistaken but next week, when the {{AIDvoter}} template changes to reflect the new improvement drive article, all the talk pages that had that template inserted without the {{subst: }} will change to reflect the new article. I think it would be better for the record that the actual article the user voted to support be listed in his talk page, which would happen if you use the {{subst:AIDvoter}} syntax. Well, thank you for taking the time to manage this improvement drive, I really appreciate it.-Poli (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

Oh, just noticed, that happened to your talk page already. Fenice left you a message about the Refugee article and it now shows as South America, here. Thanks again!-Poli (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

Hi, Poli. Thanks for your note. I've been only vaguely aware of "subst", but I will try it next week. I appreciate the tip and your help. Maurreen 06:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If I can you help in any way, please don't hesitate to ask! :) -Poli (talk • contribs) 07:52, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

Unicode

Are you aware you corrupted the unicode characters present in an article when you made this edit? You should upgrade your browser. -- Tim Starling 00:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Agriculture

Wow, some people sure get touchy about their categories! I guess a "business case" will have to be made for each change. Just kidding, though it does point up the continual need to never take anything for granted and to communicate, communicate, communicate... Sunray 17:16, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why that editor is being such so pigheaded, where there are good subcats the articles should be moved there. I'm going to leave it alone for now though. --nixie 05:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

SS Andrea Doria - category question

I saw that you recently deleted the "disaster" category from the article. Is there a legitimate reason for this? Thanks. Pentawing 03:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't aware of the category setup beforehand. Pentawing 21:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Military

I have a huge backlog of promises I have made various places in Wiki, and here I am adding to what I cannot possibly fulfil because I am so busy. Anyhow, I have a major interest in Military but it was not my prime reasons for joining Wiki. I will attempt to consolidate some topics into what seems to me to be meaningful sub-categories, then remove them from the main category. I will also make some remarks in various Talk saying why I did such actions, and predictably some other Wikipedians have contrary views about my efforts.

• National service

AlMac|^(talk) 16:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

See Category:Politics about Military for my initial efforts. In the process of moving these articles from Category:Military, I found quite a few that were ALSO in Category:War, which I removed because Military is also in War. AlMac|^(talk) 17:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

When I combined a few articles from Category Military instead into sub-category Types of Military, which already existed, but may have come into existance thanks to a suggestion I made in Talk:Military, I discovered Types of Forces as another Category.

I think perhaps these should be combined into a single category with a name like Types of Military Forces.

I am also looking at Military unit types and Military organization as categories that perhaps have room to be combined.

AlMac|^(talk) 20:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If you think Category:Military needs organization, see Category:Politics. AlMac|^(talk) 18:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I just got back from a sudden surprize business trip where I was out of touch with Internet for over a week, and have a lot of catching up to do, before I resume work on whatever I was doing before I left. AlMac|^(talk) 20:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

RFA - Litefantastic

Thank you. But I chose not to call in friends for the support vote, so I could see how I looked to the people who vote on everyone. I fell short, and in all honesty I think they're right. I'm not admin material. That hasn't got me down or anything - really. I'll just have to stick with being a regular old Wikipedian. -Litefantastic 16:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Tables, etc.

Hi, congratulations on learning templates. You're ahead of me. Maurreen (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calicocat"

Thanks. I copied the one from journalism and then worked on it until I get it together. It all about working with the template namespace and I'm also trying to work with a little of the wiki language. I found this Magic_words page helpful and I also filled in some Project forms here and there to help make both projects better known. See, after putting a lot of time on the Journalism project, I opened up a Media project, it seemed helpful to how the articles needed to be organized. Sign up there, too, please? I think over time having both projects will help as we get into issues were we're talking about those things that come closer too or go more distant from Journalism. take care for now, Calicocat 07:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring Journalism Project

I was thinking I'd like to do a refactoring (is that the right word?)of Journalism project. When I created the Media project, the system generated a long, complex table of contents. I looked that over and think our Journalism project should have that as well and then we can discuss and build the relationships between our project and others thereby calling upon various experts in other fields to help us with questions that may arise in the course of the project, and we too, might be of help to other projects from time to time by providing an ouside view. Here's the method I would use:

1. Start a "fake project" just to get the templates going fresh.(I don't think the page would actually have to be created, or if it does, he can be put up for a speedy delete once the job is finished).
2. Protect all existing content and comments as they currently exist in an external editor.
3. Delete all text in existing project
4. Cut in to the Journalism project "shell" all of the "new" table of contents and sections (all blank)
5. Restore all content from protected external files
6. Resave Journalism Project
7. Archive some initial tentative comments of mine on first reviewing the porject page.

I'll post this to the project discussion page as well. Calicocat 23:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Physical Science

I've posted a comment regarding your Physical Science post at Talk:Physical science that you may want to review. Steven McCrary 16:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian random pages

Hi, this category has been placed on Cfd here and I wanted to invite you to share your comments, as the creator. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 00:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, youre a woman...

We need some PD -gov photos of stages of pregnancy. Was wondering if you might have seen any around on the web, and if they would be good to coopt for commons.

Physical Science

Thanks. Steven McCrary 17:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

human anatomy redundant

hi there, I see you are the creator of Category:Human anatomy. It is a good idea on paper but has to contend with anatomy itself and so is redundant. Most anatomy knowledge is based on human anatomy and so adding a separate section on human is pointless. Plant and animal anatomy (zootomy) have their own separate categories. I'll put up the category for CfD, if you have no objections, PhatRita 20:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Cange to MoS Dates and Numbers (Eras)

Maurreen: You were one of the first to point out that Jguk sometimes tries to change policies or guidelines in a surreptitious manner. Here we have a case in point. Buried in the middle of the talk page, under the heading "Clarification," Jguk floats a proposed new wording to the MoS. Two people comment besides yourself indicating that they disagree with the change. Jguk waits, then changes the guideline. Do you really think this is "cricket"? Sunray 15:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

If Jguk makes this change again without following policy and normally accepted Wikipedia practice I will have no choice but to revert and take him to arbitration. He is artful in appearing to not violate the cease fire, while goading others. Sunray 16:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Category titles

...now has a straw poll. Please give your opinion. Radiant_>|< 09:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Psychotherapy improvement

Hmmm, that makes things a bit more confusing. If I'd had known it was more under the gun (dates reflecting when votes were needed posted in time) I would have rallied more votes. Is it possible to simply re-submit it? I submitted it in the first place, and I still feel like it needs attention bad... JoeSmack (talk) 21:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Category titling

Hello! Thanks for your message. I did not wish to be rude, and please be assured that I wasn't acting vengefully. I thought that when the discussion died down, and there was no obvious agreement, the best way to move forward is to hold a straw poll (which your suggested too, by the way) to see where people's preferences lie. So I wrote that straw poll and brought it to the wiki's attention. But this is not intended as a blind yes/no vote for a policy proposal; rather, people's comments here are very important. In my experience it's easier to make a strong proposal and tone it down after comments, than to make a weak proposal that won't generally be actionable. So that's why I disagreed with your rewording (but I wasn't particularly irritated, I hope it didn't seem that way). Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

AID

Thanks for telling me that Napoleonic Wars is the current AID. Just one reminder. You've used the "subst" command incorrectly.

The correct use should be {{subst:AIDvoter}} instead of subst:{{AIDvoter}} as you posted on my page. Deryck C. 09:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Opposing votes?

By your request, I've removed the 'oppose' section from your proposal. Hope that helps. Radiant_>|< 19:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Subst:

Hello Again Maurreen!

I just noticed that Napoleonic Wars made it to the IDRIVE, thanks for leaving me a message about that. Just to mention that (I haven't had the time to check if this was a one time only) but when you use the subst: tag, the right way should be {{subst:AIDvoter}} so that when you Save, the tag will be gone all together and in its place the exact content of the {{AIDvoter}} template will show. This should be the result of a {{subst:AIDvoter}}:

You showed support for This week's Improvement Drive. This week Napoleonic Wars was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help…

If you have any questions about the subst: use, contact me!

Thanks again!

-Poli (talk • contribs) 19:39, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

About the oppose votes

I presume that since Radiant! has now responded on the project talk page that things will get worked out. However, I still think that instigating an impromptu RfC via the Village Pump was the wrong way to go about things. -Splash 12:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Filipino Wikipedians

Hi, you were listed in the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Philippines page as living in or being associated with Philippines. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please add [[Category:Filipino Wikipedians|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] to your user page. Thanks. :) Coffee 03:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Brunei on the IDrive

Hi, I have put Brunei back on the list, I feel every nomination should get the full week. For Europe, the 14th only starts right now and I believe the 14 is over only in Australia. --Fenice 06:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Infobox standardization support

You have voted for the suggestive title Infobox standardisation on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation even though your comment indicates that you are actually against standardization creep or at least do not support it unconditionally. VfD for these cases offers the option to vote move to NPOV title. Comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation if you want the page to be moved, for instance to Wikipedia:Should we have instructions to standardize infoboxes?. --Fenice 08:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hellenic languages and dialects

Why did you remove the cleancat tag from this category? The problem with having the redundant "Greek language" category within this category has not been addressed. James 17:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Coordination number decategorized

Hi Maurreen, can I convince you to reconsider decategorizing articles like you did with Coordination number? articles without a category just get of sight of people not a real solution, I know chemistry is overcrowded but there are plently of new subcats generated over the last few weeks to accomodate them, thanks V8rik 16:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Competing/Redundant Pages

What did you refer to when you said this? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (provinces)? Though I proposed the latter be closed as idle and superceded by the former, but what should we do now? And thanks for your interest. --Golbez 16:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

That's a lot. :) However, my proposal, B, is specifically for the top-level things - and only when we don't know the real format. It's essentially a fallback position, and would never conflict with existing standards or projects (except perhaps with disambiguation, and that would be open to negotiation). Proposal A says it's for all divisions, and establishing a global standard for them. So if A wins, then there will be a conflict; if B wins, then it seems to fit in perfectly. --Golbez 17:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

And since the proposals are about consolidating standards into a few, are you saying we should consolidate the discussion of consolidating the consolidations? ... Sorry, I could not resist. :D --Golbez 17:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

As I'm sure we both have better things to do than argue with one another, I offer the compromise of restoring the WP:RC page and leaving the RFC as it is now. Would that be acceptable? Radiant_>|< 08:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Nor am I the only person agreeing. But I'm not sure why you disagree - from your comments I infer that you like a single page where you can see all RFCs; but there is still such a page (/All). My point is that Wikipedia namespace is an awful mess and confuses a lot of people, and I'm trying to make it more accessible. Thus I'm trying to keep track of everybody's problems and objections and see if I can address them. Radiant_>|< 08:47, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • That kind of proves my point that Wikipedia namespace is a mess. I did discuss the issue, at the WP:W talk page, and brought it up at the village pump. Response was mostly positive, so I went ahead. As Rick Block suggested, Wikispace really needs a map. Radiant_>|< 09:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)