User talk:Mav/archive 23

Emotional Hobocore

Thanks for the clean up on the definition. It was my first new entry and I'm still getting the hang of it. --Tchansen 01:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt

Hi, I just finished responding to your message on the Theodore Roosevelt talk page. To summarize what I said there, if you would be willing to take the lead, I would be more than happy to follow.--*Kat*

Will do. :) --mav

I Need Your Help

Hi Mav, How are you doing? I need your help! I originated an article about John Melendez and I have never had any problems. That is one of 197 Bios that I've written so far. The problem is this, A couple of unregistered users insist on vandalizing my article by converting it into something similar to a "stub". According to "these" users, John Melendez isn't a big enough celebrity to merit an article. I've tried to be diplomatic about it and I've even suggested that if they a problem with the article, to take it up with arbitration. This has been to no avail, they continue to constently revert my work and even have the "guts" to acuse me of being the vandal (That's the dumbest thing of all). I need something to be done about this, because I believe my article is worthy. I don't want to get into a revert war which these people are provoking. I will abide to what ever you as an arbitrator decides, but, please look into it. Thank You,Tony the Marine

I left a message on the talk page and will check back every so often for a while. --mav

Calendar templates

Hi Mav, I just spotted your response on the Village pump about the calendar templates. So I thought I should stop by and say thanks for your work on these. Its the sort of thing people take for granted, but they really are very useful. I'll pop over and say thanks to User:Ed g2s too. -- Solipsist 13:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, np. :) Thanks for the compliment. --mav

Hello

Haven't seen you around much lately. It was nice to see your name cropping up. Deb 22:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We must be on at different times - I edit just about every day. :) Thanks for the note though. --mav

Mav, you restored a lot of my faith in the fairness of the system with your fair ruling to the Gz request for arbitration. Thank you. 172 18:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we learned a bit about not being so legalistic and instead look at the usefulness of actions. Thank you for the compliment. --mav

Arbitration

While I fully respect the comments you made regarding the current Arbitration decision regarding Gzornenplatz, I would like to point out one thing that I feel was said as a factual error. There are no other people reverting the Infoboxes other than Gzornenplatz. In fact, there are several instances where people have reverted the infobox back, and then he then reverted other people's actions or told them to revert it themselves. Evidence here, here and onto the person who reverted Gzornenplatz's edits' talk page. Thank you for reading this! Páll 04:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I still stand by my statement - it was based on what I saw. --mav

Vandalism

That was second time that 168.209.97.34 vandalized Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34/Proposed decision page. See [1] ...

The page needs to be reverted and 168.209.97.34 needs a day or two ban OneGuy 09:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Noted. --mav

OneGuy's revert war

For the 5th (or maybe 6th?) time, OneGuy is violating the 3RR policy even though he has been warned even before he reached the threshold. He starts up these revert wars in order to push his Islamic Apologistic views on all articles relating to Islam. Please see his latest violation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:OneGuy_at_Israeli_violence_against_Palestinian_children 168.209.97.34 09:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is what the noticeboard is for. --mav

on the naming of "emperors"

You may (or may not!<g>) wish to comment on the (apparently serious) proposition on the talk page that Joshua A. Norton should be moved to "Emperor Norton I" - Nunh-huh 00:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will comment in a bit. --mav

calendars

Linking to List of historical anniversaries from the 2005 calendars is a bad idea as next year List of historical anniversaries will have a 2006 calendar, not a 2005 calendar as the pipe currently indicates. e.g. {{JanuaryCalendar2005}} will have the link "2005 calendar" which points to LoHA, which will be a 2006 calendar. ed g2s • talk 03:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That can be chaned once it is 2006. --mav

I'm sorry you're offended by my use of rollback, I'd could done exactly the same operation with edit summaries, but it was much quicker doing that and then leaving you a message. What exactly will it be changed to when it is 2006? And why not just use whatever link you plan to use then, now. The link "2005 calendar" should link to the 2005 calendar without need for update. What should the 2004 pages link to? The current system is very messy. Why not move List of historical anniversaries (which is a bit of a misleading title anyway) to 2005 calendar and get rid of the horrible calendar layout at the top of the page, which is effectively a set of double links. ed g2s • talk 11:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because there are some days each year that are not repeated very often. You are only supposed to use your admin user rights against vandals and per policy - doing so against non-vandals is a therefore rude and uncalled for slap in the face. --mav

Emperor Norton

Yes, I was being silly when I mentioned Carrot Top. But, I would like to fully understand the naming convention policy you created so that I can at least be on the same page as you. Is there a specific policy page you are referring to in this case? I notice there are a number of naming convention pages but I'm not sure they are all considered "official" policy. Thanks in advance for any insight you can offer. --Viriditas | Talk 09:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anything linked from Wikipedia:Naming conventions is official. --mav

Your objection on FAC: Link (Legend of Zelda)

Hi. Could you please reconsider your objection to Link (Legend of Zelda) becoming a featured article? Your concern about the lead section was more or less addressed and I believe your second reason was invalid (see FAC page for why). Thanks for your time. Phils 21:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Objection removed. --mav

subpages

Hi, I saw your note on Wikipedia:Country infobox vote about subpages not working in the article namespace, but in the few I've tried, they seemed to work fine; Nepal's for example, before you changed it (which I understand was because the template parameters changed). I've read a bit more of the history of the S-word and am agnostic on the issues with subpages for articles proper — for body text; but they seem ideally suited for messy stuff like wikitables. Getting the more complex markup out of an article would increase the comfort level of novice editors who may know a lot about some particular subject but little about markup. I would think that off-loading large tables the same way would also be a good thing. The primary argument I've seen against moving the country infoboxes to subpages (or templates) involves wanting the data in one place, which doesn't seem compelling to me; any non-trivial subject has many related articles — they're just arranged in a dead-flat hierarchy. I like Cantus' one-off template approach for the same reasons. I feel that I understand the advantages, but not the disadvantages. The counting issue seems trivial—make subpages not count. Thanks. — Davenbelle 02:20, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

It is simply not going to happen - we made the decision a long time ago to never have subpages for articles. The devs have much more important things to worry about. --mav

Arbitration

Please read what I've written on the proposed decision talk page. Everyking 23:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've read it and will keep up with that page. --mav

Thanks Mav! Only a tiny visit - I've been away on another extended photography expediton, this time to Western Australia, which is a long, long way from home - and now I'm deeply enmeshed in catching up on all the work (real work, i.e., the work I get paid for) that I've neglected since November. But it's nice to be made welcome again and at some stage over the next little while, I'll look forward to making some kind of a real (i.e., non-trivial) contribution. But not tonight: I'm off to the other side of the state for the weekend. Best Tannin 09:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikitravel

Mav,

Sorry I didn't respond to your message on my Wikitravel user talk page. I was away from home for more than a month on my honeymoon, and I had very poor connectivity during that time. That said, I should have at least made a token effort to let you know I got it.

Moving Wikitravel to the Wikimedia servers is a huge question. Right now, I'd like to stay on our own servers. I don't see a compelling reason to move, and I think staying "independent" gives us a lot more latitude for future directions. Our quality of service is pretty high right now, and although we've had to make some changes in the MediaWiki software to work better on a commercial Web presence provider, it's working pretty well.

Thanks again for the offer. We should probably keep channels open for discussion if the need comes up in the future. --ESP 15:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Certainly - let's keep channels open. :) --mav

arbitration penalty limits

Actually, the way I read Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, the one-year maximum is only for bans (not that one year is unreasonable in this case, just making a theoretical point). --fvw* 04:20, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

This is a bit of an unclear territory, so I err on the side of being lenient. --mav

I'm curious, since you are so lenient why did you refuse to discuss my valid concerns regarding the arbitration? 168.209.97.34 08:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because you raised them in the wrong place. --mav

It is useful to keep in mind that not all of us are as clued up as you are regarding wiki policy and procedure. It would have been very helpful had you simply replied telling me where to move my discussion to. 168.209.97.34 08:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New Burocrats at the portuguese wikipédia

Hello!

At the portuguese wikipedia, the community decided to choose burocrats by election. 3 new burocrats were elected for a year:

• pt:Mschlindwein
• pt:Muriel
• pt:Manuel Anastácio

It was decided that the term of the old burocrats must end now.

Could you please add burocrat powers to the new buroctrats and remove them from the old ones?

Thanks in advance,

pt:JoaoMiranda

Done. --mav

Selected anniversaries

Just wanted to say that you are still doing a great job with these! :) --mav 07:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you.  :-) -- PFHLai 08:04, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Winnemucca, Nevada

Hi, what can be seen in the photo you took of Winnemucca? I once stopped there for a coffee and I know there isn't an awful lot to see, but what is this? All the best, <KF> 13:37, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

It is the Winnemucca cemetery. A little joke of mine that nobody ever got. :) --mav

Thanks! <KF> 23:29, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

question concerning a ban.

Cheese Dreams was banned from editing Christianity-related articles for a year. Yet this is a recent edit: [2]. Arguably, this article is about a book, not about Christianity as such. But it is about a book about Christianity.

I apologize if I have misunderstood the nature of the ban, or if I should have alerted the ArbCom through some other page -- I have really been trying to turn my attentions elsewhere. Slrubenstein 01:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yep - that is very clearly in violation of the ArbCom order (also the direct opinion of the 2 other ArbCom members on IRC rigth now). Which is "Cheesedreams is banned from editing all Christianity-related articles for the period of one year. Administrators are given discretion in determining what articles are "Christianity-related" and may enact blocks of up to one week for each edit. This does not apply to talk pages but does apply to templates used in, or designed for use in, Christianity-related articles" Feel free to act accordingly or inform others who will. --mav

Blocked for five days. --fvw* 01:40, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

OneGuy in violation of arbitration ruling

Hi. You participated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34. OneGuy is violating the part of the ruling against him by continuing to make personal attacks against me. Please see Talk:Islamophobia. This is a quote from OneGuy "Gosh! Are you playing games or are you really this stupid?" Can you please let him know that rules apply to him too? 168.209.97.34 13:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sannse already gave you the correct response. --mav

Cheese

Thanks for the prompt action concerning Cheese Dreams. Now, I just found this: [3], a wholesale rewriting of the Cultural and historical background of Jesus article deleting everything I ever wrote, and accompanied by this explanation (as it were): "(Can you check this Clare? I'm still not sure this is quite right, but can you leave it until you come round for dinner on wednesday this time?.)" Clare = CheeseDreams (I know this because someone once left a message for her on her user page, calling her Clare). So I am guessing that this user is not a sock puppet -- but it is clearly a friend and it seems that s/he is in effect helping Cheese Dreams get around the ban. I reverted, but if this happens again I can easily see myself tempted to violate the 3 revert rule; I also hesitate to protect the page, not just because I have been involved in the dispute but because people of good will should be allowed to work on it. Any advice is welcome. Slrubenstein 19:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Use of proxy editors to evade a ban will not be tolerated. Give this person one warning and then if he/she does it again. block that user/IP as if it were CD. Sannse (the only other arb on IRC right now), backs me up on this statement. --mav

Thanks, Slrubenstein 19:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cheesedreams is now editing under User:Cheese-Dreams. I thought all the sockpuppets were blocked? I've blocked this one now anyway. --fvw* 23:44, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

This is just a new sock. Sigh - I don't think CD gets it. --mav

3RR

Re your revert on WP:3RR, did you see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Slrubenstein? My intention wasn't to change policy, but to clarify existing policy. Sorry if that failed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is an untested area. I'm chatting with other ArbCom members right now on this very issue. --mav

RFC on CD

Could I get you to comment on this, or certify it? I'm getting sick of the harassment. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More CheeseDreams harassment

It appears that even though CheeseDreams has been banned, she is still attempting to harass me. Please see Special:Contributions/81.156.182.159, where she has posted messages to several users in an attempt to have them file ArbCom requests or RFCs filed against me. I have since blocked this IP address for another week! Note that I've also posted this to WP:AN/Incidents - Ta bu shi da yu 02:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Not much we can do at this point - just keep track of the evidence. If this keeps up, another RFAR on her will be inevitable. --mav

Autofellatio poll

Hi. There is a poll going on at Talk:Autofellatio. We'd appreciate your vote. —Cantus…☎ 04:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What is a featured article

I've altered that page, I figure you should be aware as you cited it in the latest FAC nomination. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oops

Oh, we're protecting in advance now? Sorry, I thought we were just protecting as they came on the main page. Sorry about that. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NP :) --mav

Protected images

Why are we protecting images 3 or 4 days before they appear on the main page? Is there some kind of risk to leaving them unprotected right before they appear on the main page. I would think that people might want to make revisions to the images, photoshopping and the like, a day or so before it goes on the main page. BrokenSegue 02:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just in time protection leaves us open to attack. I don't have time to check each day, but do have time to check a couple times a week. --mav

About the message on pt:Wikipedia:Esplanada, I am perfectly willing to also translate the report on how the last fundraising money was used. ---pt:User:E2m

That report is not finish, is it? I think it is hard to translate because you want to be sure that it is right, and since you cannot read Portuguese... But, at least, now we have the link. Thank you. --pt:User:E2m

It was not already translated? See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Coleta_de_fundos/USD/Uma_vez --pt:User:E2m

Opps! Looks like it was. Sorry about that. --mav

Actually, Help-xx Onetime-xx Option-xx all still need to be translated. --mav

Tagging

Okay, {{expansion}} is indeed something to be placed on talk pages, but I think some tags like {{controversial}}, {{subst:vfd}} and {{protected}} for example need to be on the article page. Not all editors read talk pages, and sometimes that can cause lots of easy to avoid conflict. Besides, last time I checked it was supposed to go on the article page. You might want to change it in the template listings. :) Can you remember what the article was that brought you to inform me about this? Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

{{controversial}} is in the same camp and in fact most of those messages are on talk pages already. {{subst:vfd}} concerns readers due to the fact that article may no longer be there for them to read and {{protected}} is a temporary tag.<nowiki> --mav

Conrail

Those were not 'meta tags'; those templates are designed to go into the article in order to acknowledge that not everything is there. --SPUI (talk) 09:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That much is obvious from just looking at the article. Leave meta info where it belongs - in the talk page. --mav

It's not obvious in the case of {{expand list}}; someone reading the article without the tag will think that all the elements are listed. --SPUI (talk) 00:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then use as HTML comment. --mav

You're totally misunderstanding - someone READING the article, not viewing the source, would think the list is complete. --SPUI (talk) 00:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If it is so obvious, then there is no need for a tag. --mav

It's not obvious, which is why the tag is there. It's a list of some railroad lines, and there are some that should be there but aren't. --SPUI (talk) 00:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then just say, in the article and without using a template, that "This is a partial list." --mav

The point of the template is to do that in a standard way. Moving it to the talk page destroys the context; if you wish to see that template no longer used, take it to WP:TFD. --SPUI (talk) 00:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Each article deserves its own context. I gave you several alternative ways to accomplish the same thing while not being self-referential (which greatly degrades the usefulness of our articles to third parties) or directing a message to a minority of people using the article. The template is still useful on talk pages - largely by making it easy to keep track of which articles are tagged via the category system. But if a message is not acceptable as is in the article without a template, then it most certainly is still not acceptable via a template. That is what talk pages are for. Use them. --mav

How does it degrade the usefulness to third parties (which shouldn't be our primary concern anyway)? The third party can edit the templates to remove references to Wikipedia. Again, I say, if you think {{expand list}} is useless, list it on WP:VFD. It certainly isn't useful on a talk page. --SPUI (talk) 00:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

re: expansion template

Oh, I was just trying to clean up after an anonymous user who used templates cleanup and stub excessively, it seemed to me that he was looking for the expansion template. I'll put the expansion template on Talk next time. --Joy [shallot] 09:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanks. :) --mav

Appropriate tags for articles vs talk pages

G'day Mav. Thanks for the note on my talk page regarding the {{expansion}} template. However I'm a little confused, the Wikipedia:Avoid self-references page that you refer to explicitly mention {{stub}}, {{npov}} and {{expansion}} as appropriate to appear in the article text of a developing or disputed article.

If Wikipedia policy is that {{stub}} is fine on article text, but {{expansion}} is not, then Wikipedia:Avoid self-references should be updated appropriately.

However, I'll be sure to put more bulky tags (like {{expansion}}) on the talk pages in future.

All the very best, and thanks for all your hard work and contributions to wikipedia, --PJF ^(talk) 10:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice note. :) The page you refer to has been fixed. --mav

tagging articles

Please put semi-permanent templates like {{expansion}} that only are useful to editors, on talk pages (the only major exception I can think of would be the different stub templates). This is to Avoid self references as much as possible and make our content more useful to third party users. Thank you. :) --mav 09:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you are misguided, and is dubious. You forget that the vast majority of potential contributors are not practising Wikipedians, and they are just as capable of expanding an article as those with thousands of edits. It is also appropriate - indeed important - that casual readers should be warned where an article is inadequate; especially for example in the case of children who may not be able to judge this for themselves. Wikipedia is not a members' club.

My view is reflected in policy, which you have misinterpreted. Here is a quotation from the page you referred me to:

However, there are exceptions to this. In particular, an article which is still in its initial development or under dispute often will include tags such as "stub", "npov", and "expansion" to help editors further develop the article, and the text in these templates include self-references. Try, however, to limit such self-references, even in templates.

Editors should be taken to include all readers, not just those with high "insider" status. Please restore any tags which I inserted that you have removed. I have adivsed all the editors detailed above who accepted your advice of your mistake, but I would be grateful if you could inform any who have not responded on this page. Philip 10:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the incorrect wording in this policy. It has been corrected. We must balance the needs of readers, who vastly outnumber contributors (even potential contributors), with the needs of contributors. Since contributors hang out at talk pages, that is the appropriate place to put all but a small subset of self-referential templates. --mav

RE: tagging articles.

Okay. That actually makes sense (and looks better too). Will do. --b. Touch 13:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanks. :) --mav

tagging

To me it doesn't matter either way, since I am just polite enough not to remove templates already placed on the articles. Being the main editor doesn't exactly mean I have full control of the article. The Wikipedia way, remember? Yes, we make exceptions all the time just to keep things pacific. You would have a heart attack if you saw the three templates piled on the header of the original Omnipresence, methinks. But I sincerely believe that that article NEEDS the template. Reason? AN ARTICLE WITH NO SUBSTANTIAL CONTENT ISN'T USEFUL TO THIRD-PARTIES. Which leads us to a simple point: it doesn't matter wether there is a template or not. You have quite a nice curriculum in Wiki... maybe you should dedicate yourself to those great contributions instead of nitpicking this "issue"? I am placing the template on Omnipresence. After Forever doesn't need it, you are right on that one. That article needs work from somebody who cares about the band, since there is nothing to salvage from there. Notice how it is on my dropped projects list? Anyway, thank you for your time and have a nice day. --Sn0wflake 16:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And keeping track of this on talk pages, vs the article itself serves all masters. Also, articles with non substantial content are stubs - a set of templates I am not disputing should be in the article. Almost all other meta templates should be on the talk page. This directs their message to the people most likely to act on them. Oh, and I take issue on many different things. When I'm done fixing all the incorrectly-placed 'expand' templates, I will focus on something use. --mav

Yes, articles with no substantial content are indeed stubs. But there is a slight difference between good stubs that actually do a good job at covering the basic information the article requires and there are, on the other hand, stubs that simply... well, suck. There is a subtle difference that I think you are not getting. I respect the fact that you have more experience than me on the 'pedia, but that doesn't mean you can't be wrong. And on this issue, I believe you are. Doing a revision of what actually makes good use of expansion would be a better idea, perhaps? I don't know. Do as you see fit. Just please don't mess around with articles I am trying to give some future to. In this case, Omnipresence. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 23:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Stubs that actually do a good job at covering the basic information the article" are not stubs, but are just short articles. The best use of the expand tag is to direct it toward editors, not readers (who vastly outnumber editors - even when only considering reads at wikipedia.org). --mav

This is more of a curious question, but where did you get the authority to decide what's good for the Wikipedia or not? If you want to help these articles so much, please expand them. What you are doing is illogical. Don't expect me to support this in any manner. If you think you have more power due to your relative experience, then you have misunderstood the concept of this project. Very much. If you really want these changes, then submit them to public vote! Let the commnuity decide what is best! That's democracy, and I am reverting Omnipresence. --Sn0wflake 00:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning

Would that table work for you if it came at the very end of the page? -- Curps 05:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No it would not. That page is already way too cluttered as it is. --mav 05:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that was awful. silsor 05:57, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that. I use a high screen resolution so perhaps that's why the size did not appear too big to me.

Many English-speaking editors don't have occasion to use these special characters but they can occasionally come in handy (such as giving the native spelling of a foreign name). It's a longstanding feature of the edit window, but there might be less obtrusive ways to improve it:

See the discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Copyrightwarning#New_version_.28reverted.29. -- Curps 12:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tagging articles

You requested:

Please put templates like {{expansion}} that only are useful to editors, on talk pages

According to the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for expansion:

Please list entries chronologically (newest at top) and add {{expansion}} to the top of the article.

- dcljr 18:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed. --mav

request for assistance

I believe Jalnet2 has violated the three revert rule: [4]. He might argue that I did too, although I would argue that my first edit of the page today (16:00) was not technicaly a revert as there were eight different edits from five users, at least two of whom are legitimate, between my edit and Jalnet's previous edit the day before. If you feel I violated the rule too, you may as well go ahead and block me too.

I would also appreciate your comment on the dispute between me and Jalnet. These should give you all the background you need [5], [6], and todays exchange: [7].

The fact is, at this point I cannot have good faith in Jalnet -- because I have seen no evidence that he has done serious research on this topic, or understands even the basics. I have looked over most of his edits and he has made practically no substantive contribution to this article (Rikurzhen has probably contributed the most, but I have contributed a fair amount of content and many sources). Most of his edits involve changing wording. He claims he does this to assure NPOV, but I think (1) the article was NPOV before his edit (indeed, I would argue that it is a model of an NPOV treatment of a contentious topic) (2) his edits are at best weasel words and at worst, misrepresent the state of scientific discussion on race, and (3) are designed to push his own agenda, which is that the essentialist view of race is scientifically correct. (I am putting this on the noticeboard, but I aspecially trust your judgement) Slrubenstein 20:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy right now - but will look into this later. If you need a 3RR block, then the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is the best place to ask. --mav

Tags

Mav, I feel you shouldn't be moving tags to talk pages without seeking a community-wide consensus. Some of the tags are important on the articles themselves, particularly the neutrality and disputed-facts tags, because they signal to the reader that there's an acknowledged problem which is being dealt with. Having these tags on talk pages means the reader doesn't see them, and it also means the authors of the article have less of a motivation to sort the issue out. SlimVirgin 00:24, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

See above for my other responses. I'm going to leave any tag which is useful to readers alone. Warning a reader that the article they are reading is biased or disputed is a good thing - SO LONG AS there is an actual dispute expressed on the talk page. All other comments go talk pages. The use of tags to force an issue based on the POV of one and only one person is not proper - it mindless graffiti. . --mav

I've not run into you much in the past but from the edits of yours I've seen, I didn't have you down as a bully, so what's happening here? You're removing tags from lots of pages, haven't sought consensus, then when people object that you're going against the guidelines, you're changing the guidelines, and reverting when your guideline-changes are deleted! Come on, try to get a consensus first, please, so people who don't agree with you have a chance to say their piece without having to engage in edit wars with you, which no one wants, I'm sure. SlimVirgin 01:06, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm fed up with the insertion of meta comments into articles. Talk pages are the place for that. If any of these messages were made by just inserting in the actual text vs a template, then those messages would be moved to the talk page. Just because it it done via a template, does not excuse things. These types of self-referential tags must be kept to a bare minimum to keep Wikipedia maximally useful to third parties - none of which are called Wikipedia and very, very few of which are editable. Use the talk page. --mav

See my comments above, namely "How does it degrade the usefulness to third parties (which shouldn't be our primary concern anyway)? The third party can edit the templates to remove references to Wikipedia. Again, I say, if you think {{expand list}} is useless, list it on WP:VFD. It certainly isn't useful on a talk page." --SPUI (talk) 01:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And when there are a hundred templates like this? A thousdand? How much work do you expect third parties to do in order to use our content? --mav

Why should that be our concern? Anyway, it should be trivial to search all the templates for the word 'Wikipedia' and blank those. --SPUI (talk) 01:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Have you read our license? It is all about reuse. Having too many self-refs gives people two practical choices: 1) don't use our material or 2) do stupid things like a find and replace of all instances of the word "Wikipedia". I've seen the second option done and it ain't pretty. --mav

Our license allows reuse. Our license does not say that we will break with what makes sense to make reuse easier. And I didn't say to replace all instances of the word 'Wikipedia'; I said to delete all templates containing the word 'Wikipedia' (or an edit this page link, or another of a small number of things to search for). --SPUI (talk) 01:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The whole purpose of the license is reuse. That is the point of copyleft. Wikipedia is not just a play thing for Wikipedians - many third parties use our content. And even if they did not, there still would be a need to separate meta data from content. --mav

The primary purpose of what we're doing is to produce an encyclopedia that people can trust. We signal to our readers, who are also potential editors, that there is a problem with one of our articles (too POV, factually disputed, or too short) by placing a template to that effect on the article. This (a) tells the reader the page isn't up to the standard we'd like to see, and (b) it may also encourage the reader to edit it. Such templates are almost entirely pointless on talk pages, as those already engaged in talk-page discussions will know that the thing is too POV, too short, whatever. Your point above that there should be an on-going discussion on the talk page when an NPOV tag is used is already a guideline, I believe, and these tags are deleted if the person who puts it on the article moves on without discussion. I agree with you that articles shouldn't carry too many tags, but some are genuinely useful. Why not set up a subpage for this discussion, so that you can try to reach a community-wide consensus? SlimVirgin 01:49, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Too POV={{POV}}, factually disputed={{disputed}}, or too short={{stub}} (and variants). I'm not moving any of those tags, because, as you say, they are useful to readers as well as editors. The tags I'm moving and/or replacing with HTML comments, are primarily useful to writers, not readers. --mav

Not true; your most recent edit ([8]) was to move {{POV check}}, which is a milder version of {{POV}} and is thus also useful in the article. In fact, you seem to be going through all the pages with {{POV check}} and doing this at the moment. --SPUI (talk) 02:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Different template. That one is talking to writers, not readers and can be placed unilaterally by anybody. --mav

Any template can be placed unilaterally; Wikipedia:Be bold. I'm sure there have been revert wars over {{POV check}} just as with {{POV}}. Any differences other than one being a mild version of the other are artificial and probably not followed. I for one think of POV check that way (just a mild version of POV). --SPUI (talk) 02:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was just being bold on a massive scale. :) Any template that talks about the article instead of offering info or links about the topic is subject to scrutiny. Some meta templates are fine, if they are useful to readers. {{POV check}} really is not (but is not as obviously so as {{tl:expand}}). I'll work on something else for a while. --mav

By the way, I should probably inform you about Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Moving tags to talk pages?. --SPUI (talk) 02:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. :) --mav

I have created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maveric149. I apologize if this is not the right place to take this, but no one has mentioned another way. --SPUI (talk) 20:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

edit summary

You've edited a great many pages with the edit summary "This is an article referring to the software development term Framework. For the software suite of the same name please refer to", what does this mean? :S Grunners 02:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yep - my mistake. See your talk page for more. --mav

Lincoln

Please don't revert this article. It was reverted a few days ago, removing two months worth of improvements. I am trying to restore it and incorporate the changes made over the past couple of days, and you've just screwed that up.

You need to make sure you say things like this in edit comments. --mav

Sorry. I got a bit steamed when I found out someone had reverted the article back two months without explanation and I just leapt into editing.

Bryce Canyon Picture

Did you assemble the picture by hand? Looks like it, I can see what looks like a hand-made seam. Not a criticism, couldn't do better myself. Excellent job. Rsduhamel 06:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for the note. I've replied on my talk page. I've been away so long that I can't remember whether I usually reply to people on my talk page or theirs. Most likely I never even had a consistent system, so I think I'll reply here too, just to confuse you. ;) Basically, I'm still around, but taking a break from editing Wikipedia for some unspecified amount of time. I don't know who edited my user page, or why, but I certainly didn't authorise any changes. Anyway, thanks for thinking of me. I hope Wikipedia is still going strong, and that you're still doing good stuff here. Well, I'm sure you are. :) So, see you in 2019, or whenever it is that I'm coming back properly... :) -- Oliver P. 10:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you are fine and do hope you return before 2019. :) --mav

policy regarding date-articles...?

is there somewhere in wikipedia a written set of guidelines about what and not what to include on the individual day-of-the-year articles? or are we just using gut instinct to discern what should and shouldn't be there? Kingturtle 02:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the Year, but that is all about overall structure. The real criteria of what to include is therefore a bit subjective. I put what I think are the most important events/people into these articles and leave out the less important items. --mav

It may be helpful if we could work out some criteria for what should and shouldn't be included in a day-of-the-year article. lately, User:05 and I have been at odds about this issue. we need to find some common ground. Kingturtle 05:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good - start a thread about this on the WikiProject talk page. --mav

Elegant prototype solution in progress for geographical coordinates (possible next step in Mapit and geolinks templates)

Hey Mav, you helped to get the mapit and geolinks templates into all the city articles, so I thought you would be interested in this and might be able to put some clout behind it? Mapit/Geolinks is doing fine, but I think it has some inherent limitations that reduce its impact and usability. Egil has worked up a prototype alternative solution for dealing with geographical cooridinates in MediaWiki natively with a "special" page, similar to the handling of ISBN. I realize the handling of ISBN is a little ancient, but I've always liked it. Anyway, I imagine the code for Egil's solution is not particularly bulky, plus a lot of the work is already done at his prototype, which is running on an external MW server. These links describe the idea:

• Geographical coordinates WikiProject
• the coordinate style guide

And here's an example of the prototype solution in action: 37.759881°N 122.437392°W / 37.759881; -122.437392 --Chinasaur 01:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds neat - but I'll have to take a look after the fund drive. --mav

Based on the same concept, there is now also reverse linkage into Wikipedia from NASA World Wind. See WikiProject Geographical coordinates for some examples. — Egil 09:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)