Maurreen

Joined 12 September 2004
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brianjd (talk | contribs) at 10:26, 18 July 2006 (Category:Information Technology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Brianjd in topic Category:Information Technology

I may be here irregularly. Or I may not.

WP 1.0 stuff

Hi Maurreen,

I wanted to check that you were OK with the new navigation box and userbox. AtionSong's new logo is rather better than my crudely done "plain vanilla" one, I think. I would also like to re-vamp the main page in a major way to reflect where we are now rather than where we were in September. Are you going to be on Wikipedia much this week? If I know you're around I'll create it as a test page and let you review/edit it before I upload it. Would that be OK?

Regarding Vir's long posting on the Core Topics discussion - I think Vir is someone who cares deeply about how information is organised, and as such he will be a great asset to this project. I think he's still fairly new to Wikipedia (about 6 weeks only?), and so it's natural that he's interested in the process at this point. Would you mind if we put together a "more core topics" page? My concern is that if we wait till all of the initial 160 or so are fully "done" before even we consider anything more, we will not publish even a test version of WP1.0 for several years. I don't think we can just release 200 articles, even as a test. If we can identify weak areas now in the next 100, we can (I think) attract more help, and work can still proceed with the COTF etc. (Btw, I am preparing to contribute on humanities & toy, that's why I've neglected technology). I'm itching to get Core Topics linked up with the FAs and the WikiProject listings, once we can bridge that gap we can start planning a small test release, IMHO. The additional 100 or so should be the bridge we need. on a related note, what do you think of Titoxd's roadmap? Walkerma 16:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I came here to reply to you post on my talk page. I see you've chatted with Martin about categorizing. Yes, I care about the theory and existing (and emerging new) methods for that. Seems important to me -- for the future joint organization of Wikipedia publications and top level reference tools -- for classification theory to be made more explicit and available. Anyway, I hope to look at the Humanities article some time. No, not hard feelings -- but I was frustrated to see the core topics categorization process possibly mushroom when the first step seemed like it might be close to closure. Glad you suggested possible closure. At same time, I think a lot of mushrooming of ideas and options for categorization schemes is the next step -- after getting a working model in place. And whatever creative bursts move that along are good. Thx, Vir 04:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Maurreen

Just ran across your name in a vote at WP:RFA and was glad to see you back at Wikipedia. Hope you are well, Steve block talk 21:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

My RFA

Technology

I agree with your comments in response to my question. The "History of technology" section is far and away the best of the article and the rest is academic in a 3rd-year-undergraduate-essay kind of way: far too long without saying much. Which brings me to a concern for WP1.0. Many Wikipedia articles are now beginning to suffer from wiki bloat. They just keep getting added too, without attention to the basics of how to write decent articles. With respect to size, I've always found the following to be valid:

Articles themselves should be kept relatively short. Say what needs saying, but do not overdo it. Articles should aim to be less than 32KB in size. When articles grow past this amount of readable text, they should be broken up to improve readability and ease of editing.

I've haven't noticed any discussion of article size on the project pages. I would like to raise it, if it hasn't already been thrashed to death. Um, well actually, I would like to raise it anyway. What are your views? Sunray 08:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, agreed, it isn't an issue for many of the articles currently identified. However, Technology is certainly an example of the problem. The article isn't as bad as many I've come across recently, but, at 38 KB, has begun to ramble and has far too many sections. The net effect is that it doesn't hold the reader's attention. The solution, IMO is bold editing and re-writing in order to bring an article like that up to Featured article status. Nothing beats succinct, well written articles in my book. Sunray 06:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Africa GA

The article, Africa, was recently nominated for Good article stauts, but unfortunately failed. For the reasons why it failed see Talk: Africa. Please use these suggestions to improve this article and re-apply for GA. Much thanks, Highway 07:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Inadequate pages

If I read you right, you are suggesting that an "Inadequate" tag be developed that would supplant the various clean-up tags that appear on article pages. This sounds reasonable. I especially like the principle that there be discussion of an articles' weaknesses on the talk page. This doesn't always happen now.

The one exception to this might be the NPOV tag. As NPOV is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, it should probably remain on the article page. Sunray 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bot

Your recent edit of some article was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If you were experimenting, know that everyone really is welcome to contribute, but tests should be done in the sandbox. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. // Tawkerbot2 20:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

WP 1.0

Hey - Noticed you're working on the Version 1.0 project - would love to get involved since it's probably a whole lot more useful than my usual aimless editing and categorizing. If you could provide some guidance or a to-do list, I'd be thrilled to jump right into the project. Thanks, hope to hear from you! Paul 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Redirects

Just so you know, when you want to redirect a page (when you want something to a "see such and such") instead of keeping two articles the syntax #REDIRECT [[page name here]] is the accepted syntax. You got the bot auto warning because the redirect didn't match the pattern, I know its good faith and I've fixed it for you. If you have any questions feel free to leave me a message :) --

Thats your problem :) -- Tawker 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tawkerbot2

You got a message for this edit [1]. It looks like a bad redirect. joshbuddytalk 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks

Maurreen,

I just wanted to thank you for the barnstar last month, it really meant a lot, coming from the founder of the WP1.0 Editorial Team. I assumed I would be in touch with you so I could thank you then, but I guess I've been incredibly busy recently. I appreciate your comments, and I'm excited about your new proposal too. Walkerma 04:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply


Release qualifying review & cats

Maurreen, Regarding 1.0 Release qualifying review: I replied to your request for comment on my talk page. I reviewed the RQ talk page and I came up with some generic "publishing" thoughts off the top of my head. I'll repost to the RQ discussion page after I sit on those.

About the categories for core topics, I think the revision of the revised cats you made could be tweaked until we are happy with that. Or, are you ok with it now? That particular revision (of option 6A by you) was further along the path to being a consensus working outline than the top of the tree by Martin. So, why not go with it? It does seem to resolve the issue of what to do with "culture." I'm guessing that Martin and Gflores don't mind as much as the two of us about the specific category items as much as having the general family of that sort of category set used. And, as a workable starting point (before rounds and rounds of exploring options), I don't mind something which is in between the American and French top level cats. Meow :) Vir 23:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maurreen, yes, I'm sure we can finish the category thing sometime, perhaps in the next the few weeks, so let's do it. --Vir 16:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Latin America won!

 
Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Latin America was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Joyous | Talk 19:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikibreak?

Maurreen,

Thank you so much for your leadership over the core topics and RVQ, I really think this is moving WP1.0 into a faster gear. I was wanting to give you a barnstar for all your work (I've never given one before!), but I didn't want it to be seen as a thank you for the one you gave me recently! Anyway, please understand that I and others very much appreciate your work and your extremely valuable ideas. I'm very excited about RVQ, I think it offers us a path to publication that was rather sketchy before.

I also think that moving the project into a faster gear is very scary - I have learnt that on Wikipedia you reap what you sow! If you contact 100 WikiProjects you need to be willing to then follow up on 100 talk pages, and fill in 100 tables! If you initiate a new idea you either let the idea die or you have to put in many hours to defend it against detractors, defend it against those who will take it off on a tangent, organise the work (goals, infrastructure, standards and norms of working) and push it forward - all while doing a day job as well! But it's also very satisfying when things get going and develop a life of their own.

Anyway, I hope you don't take too much of a break! Maybe you can keep editing the core topics articles themselves? I plan on working on humanities over the next couple of days. Our plans at WP1.0 can tick along, and if you want I'll alert you to any major developments here. I hope you'll take back the reins of WP:Core topics when you've had a break, too.

Regards, Walkerma 07:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Maurreen, I'm sorry I didn't even follow up on your RVQ-related note of a few days ago, as I've been immersed in my own things, but just to say, have a nice break, and I will try to build on your work myself if I get the time. Cormaggio @ 10:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maurreen: Breaks are necessary, at times, to keep one's prespective. However long you take--and I hope it will be long enough but not too long--you can take pride in the initiative and leadership you have shown. Blessings. Sunray 00:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad to hear that you are back in action. I think that the most valuable lesson a leader can learn is to listen. Failing that, don't hook with people who have a determined POV! While I'm up here, here's my favourite bit of wisdom from the old Kung Fu series: "...Just as the snow disappears from the side of the mountain and the grass begins to grow, so to in every loss there is a gain and in every gain, a loss. Sunray 16:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thoughtful? Perhaps. I was watching your interaction with another user and couldn't resist getting my two cents in. I do that sometimes even though I know that advice is not always what people want (hence the attempt to make it sound thoughtful, I guess). Sunray 17:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

“Medicine” is the new MCOTW

Hello! Medicine, which you voted for, has been selected as this week’s medicine collaboration of the week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker 01:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

RE: Wikipedia 1.0

Hi there! I hope you're well. Thanks for your prior note; I'm on a work-focused wikibreak of sorts until month's end (ha!), so I apologise for my silence.

I'd be happy to participate! I will provide detailed commentary shortly. Relatedly, I've added myself to the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Geography team: as you might recall, I've a particular interest in this field – among others! – and have been on a quest of sorts to equilibrate and, if needed, rectify shortcomings in a spattering of related articles.

Please let me know if you've any questions. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Journawiki

Hi Maurreen, sorry been out of touch. Just wanted to give you the heads up - I'll likely use Journawiki at Wikia as a demo/test for a training session I'm doing for Asian bloggers/journalists. [2] So there may be more edits and some new user registartionss. Let me know if there's any problems. Thanks! -- 09:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned by User:Fuzheado.

1.0 & GA

Maurreen, you are welcome for those edits on the 1.0 Core topics page. About the GA page: It is interesting and natural how the 1.0 "article progress grading scheme" is coming up in the GA evaluation discussions.

I think your recent summary comments were helpful. And, if you feel so inclined, more overview comments from you there could be helpful. It's probably going to take the GA group some time to figure out options. I'm mostly going to take a break through next Wed. Big deadline moved to next week. --Vir 04:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ranking articles by "need" (aka importance)

Maurreen, I recently stumbled across a wonderful new system of ranking articles by importance, and I posted on this here. I am very enthusiastic about this system (hence the section header!!), it seems very simple and clear - do you think it could work for us at WP1.0? Please give comments, thanks, Walkerma 03:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

thanks!

 
Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Denmark was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 07:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the the AID Maintenance TeamReply

Wikipedia 1.0 Barnstar

 
For all of your leadership and great ideas at WP:1.0, much appreciated. Walkerma 15:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maurreen, I've never given any barnstars before, but I just wanted to recognise the fact that you were the one who got the WP1.0 team started, and you have been a continual source & support of great ideas like core topics, the geography project and release version qualifying. Wikipedia owes a lot to you. Thank you! Walkerma 15:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Toy as new COTF

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

"Assessed versions" of articles

Maurreen, You may remember raising the issue, "What if an article is vandalized after the assessment was done, how do we catch that?" Some good news - Oleg says he will set up the bot to store version the article found on the day the assessment was uploaded - not a problem for the bot, apparently. So our tables will be compiling (in effect) the assessed version, not the latest version of each article. Also, please see my comments on other things on the V1Q talk page. Walkerma 18:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Geography project

Hi Maurreen,

I was reflecting on your comment at the end of this section. Since you had said that you were going to focus all of your energies on the main WP1.0 project, I took the liberty of asking User:E Pluribus Anthony if he might consider taking the helm, and it sounds like he may be willing. Would this be OK? Would you be willing to stand down from leading the Geography project if he is? I think it's a nice compact little project, and I'd hate to see it just fade away. I think in time it could grow and become a regular release alongside the main releases, and also there could be some synergy between those main releases and the Geography ones as we each approve places articles. What do you think? Walkerma 02:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

version 1.0

Hi

I would like to know more about the technical specifs chosen for version 1.0. Do you know who I could contact for this ? Cheers Anthere

Please Help

 
Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Rome was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.
Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 01:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance TeamReply

Please Help

 
Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Rome was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.
Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 02:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance TeamReply

Business now COTF

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

USMC Portal

I just happened to read your bio page and thought I'd at least mention that we are looking for as many contributors as possible at the USMC Portal. I realize that you contribute in other areas but if you are ever looking to mix things up a bit we are always looking for help. Thanks in advance.--Looper5920 20:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

Hey, Earlier, you nominated Asia for AIM. So, I was just wonder if you could lend you support for History of Southeast Asia as a candidate at AIM. Thanks! __earth (Talk) 15:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Opening up WP:V0.5N

Maurreen,

I submit my final grades tonight, so my teaching commitments are formally over till July (summer school) and I will have a bit more time for Wikipedia. I was thinking of opening up WP:V0.5N (and therefore WP:V0.5) on Thursday, what do you think? Will you be around to help if we get any problems? I am contacting Tito and Wizzy directly as well. Cheers, Walkerma 02:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

It looks like V0.5N has already opened up! After talking with Tito, we have decided to create a page for our team of reviewers for WP:V0.5. However, for WP:V1 we will still need all the help we can get, so it would seem to be best not to disband the team after V0.5 finishes. Is that OK with you? I am planning on calling it Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Review Team, but we can move the page to a V0.5 name if need be. Walkerma 14:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please help on Ancient Egypt

 
Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Ancient Egypt was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Posted by Pruneau 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID Maintenance TeamReply

Science is now the COTF

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

Those Hurricanes!

So, are you a hockey fan yet? Sunray 08:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not an Oilers fan, but I had to admire their grit. The Hurricanes were the stronger team. I was wondering what the Hurricanes success has done to the acceptance of hockey in North Carolina. Sunray 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Very interesting to hear your account of the reaction to wining the cup. I must say, I've always felt a connection to N. Carolina and this somehow increases that affinity. I cannot really explain that (not really being a hockey fan either), but as a Canadian—and no question that hockey is a part of our culture—there is a connection. Mind you, I have many other connections to your part of the world, so I don't want to blow the hockey angle out of proportion. Unfortunately the distance from Canada's west coast doesn't allow me to get there often enough. Sunray 20:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

1.0/Featured

Maurreen-

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

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

Culture is now the Core Topics COTF

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

McClintock

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

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

Tribe

Maureen:

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

Trueblood78664.173.197.170 05:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply


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

Maureen:

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

trueblood 18:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply


The article is under Sudhan

trueblood 23:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Recent additions to Culture article

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

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

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

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

school counselor

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

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

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

It ranks 35 on MSN, and 19 on Googlewhicky1978 talk 19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Why are yu deleting the category culture?

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

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

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

Culture --> Good article

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

I've finished the "Notes" and "References" (or rather gone blind and can no longer make further changes). Now for a pic for the lead. Here are some ideas on Wikimedia Commons. I was thinking something like
Each of these show crowds of people and various aspects of culture. Do you think that something like this would be appropriate? Or do you have some other ideas? Once we have finalized the image, we should be ready to nominate the article for GA. Sunray 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Or these from Commons/Dance in art, which show patterns and symbols. I thought that either

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

Two more from that same catalog:
And these:
Oh, and this:

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

Hi there

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

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

Community is now the Core Topics COTF

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

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

Eagle Scout

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

"Imperfect" that's an understatement. V0.5 has an article on prison experiments. So choice is left to luck of the draw as to which reviewer you get and lower quality B articles are chosen and yet you lose out on FA KEY articles on a highly esteemed achievement? What a farce. Rlevse 16:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Version_0.5_Nominations#FLAWED_PROCESS. It's a good spot to discuss this. Rlevse 17:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Version 0.5 eligibility

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

Template:Location Grid

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


Thank you, and i agree. it will help us both out. :) File:Ca-on-wd.gif User:Raccoon Fox   Talk   23:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good article changes

Hi Maurreen,

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

Cedars 00:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Geography Category

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

Importance

Hi Maurreen,

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

Community

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

Admin nomination?

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

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

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

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

*Lance Armstrong - admin removed factual information about drug abuse allegations as published in a book [3] [4] [5] or as noted in our own Greg LeMond article.[6] [7] [8] Argues inclusion violates Wikipedia rules on biographies of living people. 12:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Socafan 13:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would you prefer Disagreement about drug abuse allegations against Lance Armstrong - factual information or violation of Wikipedia rules on biographies of living people? Socafan 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
My wording at WP:3O was somewhat imprecise and underinformed. The overall activity did not follow the spirit of the page, if you follow me. I can give details if you like.
Either Disagreement about including drug abuse allegations against Lance Armstrong or Disagreement about application of [[WP:BLP|Wikipedia rules on biographies of living people] would be better.
I believe that your original listing was made in good faith and that it was relatively short and neutral. But the reply did not; that's not your fault. The reversions aren't helpful any which way. It appears that you two have a larger problem. I have some doubt that a third opinion will resolve the situation.
Also, I just noticed the above discussion. It looks like someone else is already involved. Maurreen 13:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your kind clarification. Unfortunately, there has still happened no real discussion at Lance Armstrong. The third individual that posted on my talk page also left a couple of comments at the other user's talk page but did not help top resolve the conflict. Maybe you could? You do not need to be a cycling expert, I am none, either. Socafan 13:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm working on fixing the content. That entire section was POV tagged for very obvious reasons. I have removed much of the redundancy and (I hope) all the innuendo. The book still needs to go in, but we need reliable sources discussing it and its credibility first. Feel free to pitch in, Maurreen. Just zis Guy you know? 14:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
You just make it more POV towards your preferred version. Socafan 14:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Version 1.0

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

Types of community

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

Category:Information Technology

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