User talk:Maurreen/archive 3

Thanks for the cleanup medal!

I really appreciate your giving me the Janatorial services medal. Thanks. JesseW 02:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

tnx

Maurreen, I sensed your approbation, but I appreciate hearing from you and I'm glad I'm not holding the fort alone. I'm not sure which "one comment" you wanted single out, but I have a favorite (written only for those who can read), so I am allocating your compliment to that one. Tom P. Ortolan88 16:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Featured article

Thank you for your support, Maurreen. All objections have now been removed; apparently, I have to wait about another week in case other objections are made. If none are, then it's a featured article!  :-) Slim 04:03, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Advocacy

I'd be pleased to help, as I have my own bad experiences with jguk. How can I help? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 04:10, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. The Arbitration Committee requires a timeline of evidence, such as this one. If we can put that together, then the AC might accept an arbitration request. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 04:56, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed way forward

I am concerned at our disagreement on WP:MOS. I think you would agree with me that it has got somewhat out of hand. I'd like to offer a way forward. I think we are in a situation where neither of us trusts the other, and our mutual distrust is creating some disruption on the MOS talk page. I know typed words do not allow conveyance of tone. Let me say that I am sincere and I wish to resolve our disagreements swiftly and amicably so we can both move on and carry on together here on Wikipedia.

My first proposal is that we agree a cooling off period: that we both agree not to edit the WP:MOS, the MOS talk page (including its subsidiary pages) or discuss the MOS with any other user for, say, fourteen days from your acceptance of the proposal. I think it would be interesting to see how the debate develops, if at all, without us; as well as give us a chance to do other things in Wikipedia that we want to do.

My second proposal is that we outline what our views are on a sub-page. I propose discussing what our MOS philosophy is, how we view our own actions and how we view each others actions. I don't want this to become a forum for personal attacks or carrying on the discussions on the WP:MOS talk page (although it would be useful to discuss our perceptions of our disagreements). I think if we knew where the other was coming from, we would at least be able to come to some mutual understanding of each other, even though we would still have disagreements.

I am therefore opening up a page on User talk:jguk/Maurreen and jguk. Please feel free to add your comments in due course. Meanwhile, I look forward to hearing your response to the proposed cooling off period. jguk 13:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hi Maurreen. I've made a rational for my comment in the manual of style, but mostly it was just a gut instinct. I can't wait to start learning all of the Wikicustoms ;) Sean Kelly 18:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stylebooks

Maureen, I don't know about Canadian magazines and books. I know only that most newspapers follow Canadian Press (CP) style, usually with slight variations of their own. The problem with the CP stylebook is that it's badly written and sometimes wrong when referring to issues outside Canada. The Globe and Mail stylebook [1] is, to the best of my knowledge, regarded as the clearest and most intelligent stylebook in Canada, and it does not follow CP style. Beyond that, I have no knowledge of what they do. Slim 00:07, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Wikidemia

Hi Maurreen. Thanks for your interest in the new project about academic research on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidemia. I think this project holds great promise for crafting linkages between Wikipedia and academia and for organizing our efforts to understand even better what helps make Wikipedia work so well. As you requested, I'll be sure to keep in touch about our progress. Tobacman 07:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Debate about deleting an image

Greetings. There is a spirited debate going on here about whether or not to delete Image:Nevada-Tan.jpg for privacy reasons. Since you have recently voiced an opinion on Wikipedia:Divulging personal details, I thought you might be interested in weighing in. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:46, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

No original research page

Hi Maurreen, thanks for letting me know about this. I'll take a look at it as soon as I get a minute. It's an issue I'm quite interested in, so I appreciate being asked to look at it. Best, Slim 05:21, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Paragraphs

I also meant to ask you: Do you happen to know of any good (authoritative/reputable) writing guides regarding lengths of paragraphs? I've always been taught to write in short paragraphs, but I'm finding several editors here who say that good writing demands longer paragraphs. They express the view that one paragraph = one idea, which I agree with, but obviously my idea of what an idea is differs from theirs. I know shorter paragraphs tend to be preferred by newspapers but perhaps elsewhere it's different. If you know anything about this, or can think of a resource, please let me know. No worries if you don't have time. Slim 15:52, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. Very useful. Yes, I am interested in changing it. I do have a tendency to write too short paragraphs so sometimes having them edited is useful, but I find some editors go to the other extreme and you end up with dense, unreadable material that looks bad on the page.

I've just edited the original research draft page. I'll have to go back for a copy edit, but had to leave it briefly because either Wikipedia or my computer is so slow today that it's almost unbearable. I'll go back into it now and see whether it'll let me do anything. I found a couple of the sections seemed to contradict the rest of the page, but I may have misunderstood them. I made quite a few changes. Slim 17:42, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Quoth: ...minor edits, which aren't copyrightable...

Would you consider adding "{{MultiLicenseMinorPD}}" to your user page or User:Maurreen/Copyrights, which basically states that your minor edits are in the public domain (i.e. not copyrightable)? It would be helpful just to have your explicit confirmation of that point, even if it is implied, just so there is never a question. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 14:53, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

I have nominated you for adminship. If interested, please accept at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maurreen. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 03:06, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Disingenuity

Maurreen, I am breaking my self-imposed embargo on editing WP:MOS pages to remove the comments you added to the archives that were made on an RfC page. That RfC failed for lack of support. Under the policies of the RfC, where it fails, it is deleted. People making comments on that page do so in that knowledge. It is disingenuous of you to continue your harrassment of me by pasting comments that should be deleted into another forum. I should be grateful if you would now stop this vendetta you have against me. jguk 18:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CamelCase

Why did you listed (or not? - I can't find it on a copyvio page) that article as copyright infringement? The mentioned page http://www.netbros.com/CamelCase lists Wikipedia as their source, so it must be the other way around. Grue 17:53, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rat Park

Maurreen, I've nominated another article I wrote for featured article status. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. It's called Rat Park and is about a largely forgotten psychology experiment. But I'll understand if you're too busy, so don't feel you have to look at it. It has long paragraphs, by my standards, at least.  :-) Best, Slim 10:48, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry, I quite understand. I'm finding the process interesting and annoying for the reasons you mentioned. Some very insightful responses; some quite wrong, in my view. Anyway, I contacted one of the most drugs-are-addictive POV warriors (a well-known scientist), and asked him to direct me to the most convincing drugs-are-addictive study that exists, and what he directed me to honestly doesn't amount to a hill of beans. If I'm to make that article NPOV in the way the objectors understand the term, I may have to make something up. That famous 2004 study by Professor SlimVirgin, conducted in a little known laboratory in a secret location. :-) Slim 02:27, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_words_having_different_meanings_in_British_and_American_English

Maureen,

would you like to chip in on the debate over the inclusion/exclusion of syrup at Talk:List_of_words_having_different_meanings_in_British_and_American_English#Syrup?

Thanks

WLD 14:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team

Hello. I've joined the Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team. I've done some rearranging of the project page and posted some information that was previosuly decided on other pages to get us a good solid foundation for moving forward. I believe our next course of action should be taking the articles /topics you've listed on User:Maurreen/Basic_topics and deciding whether or not they fit the Version 1.0 Standard, or 0.5 Standard. And if they don't qualify as at least 0.5, we need to get them up to that level, either by ourselves, or listing them where others can contribute to them. After deciding what standard each article qualifies for, let's put them in bold text on the User:Maurreen/Basic_topics page, so it is easier to determine what still needs to be rated. Thanks, and I hope for a great future in the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team. --Randy 02:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Update: I've made the page Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Pages_to_be_rated so that there we can organize what topics need to be sorted, and what has and hasn't already been sorted. It's the same information on your user page under /Basic_topics, however I believe it will be less confusing if we have it under the project page. By the way, if you dislike any way I have rearranged the project page, you are welcome to fix it to your likings. I think I've covered a lot of information without a lengthy writeup. Thanks. --Randy 02:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Global English

Thanks for the pointer to International English. I'm sure it'll help me in the considerable work I've cut out for myself. — Jeff Q 08:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Serial comma

I feel we should just go ahead and re-re-direct the Oxford comma. The thing is that I don't know how to do it without getting rid of the edit history, which it would be nice to keep. Do you know, or do you know who might? Slim 11:48, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

VfD

Hello. An archive of the RfC that you filed, User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC is up for deletion. Vacuum c 03:19, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip-off on my talkpage. I'd prefer old disputes were left in the past, which is where they belong, rather than permanent records being kept of the merest thing. It's disappointing that many of the (presumably younger) Wikipedians on VfD feel differently. Anyway, as I said, thanks for the tip-off.

I see you have changed back my changes to the MoS. I have left three queries for you on the talk page. I'd be grateful if you would look at them and answer them. I would then suggest we do not re-address the issue for a while, and let other Wikipedians add their commments.

Finally, I never commented on your comment on the Manual's policy on punctuation. I too think this policy is odd. IMHO, the policy should follow the requirement that any form of standard English should be used, rather than peculiarly "splitting the difference" between British and American usage. I would add, however, that the American habit of including punctuation inside inverted commas even where the most logical approach would be to have it outside looks odd to a non-American. I would recommend only using that method of punctuation in articles that are clearly written in American (as opposed to, say, Canadian or Australian) English.

Kind regards, jguk 16:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

International English

The International English article about which you made a flattering comment about, is, I believe, much worsened. User:SlimVirgin, while admitting to knowing almost nothing about the topic, not even sure that "International English" actually exists, is making unilateral and undiscussed changes. This follows on an argument about a statement in British English. You may be able to mediate on this and on the following changes which User:SlimVirgin has made. I have no belief that the International English article is anywhere near perfect, but think it has been far worsened. The version I prefer is at user:Jallan/International English. Jallan 07:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it would be helpful to have Maurreen check out the article. The page on International English, as it stood, was a good example of the importance of providing clear, authoritative references, and of providing quotes from those sources that are relevant and are used in context. The article was an example of "original research" in my view, with academics being quoted out of context, and irrelevant and unauthoritative primary sources being used in an unscholarly fashion to produce what Jimbo Wales has called a "novel narrative." (The website of a Harry Potter fan, for example, was used to show that there is such a thing as "international English".)

It is true that some TEFL and TESL language schools have tried to introduce the term "international English" as a money-making tool, so they have an extra something to offer their students, who invariably want to learn American English, but American English teachers are not always available. To compensate for that deficit, language schools have been trying to introduce the idea of "international English" since the 70s, with little success to the best of my knowledge, though my knowledge of this may be outdated. In the academic world, the term seems to be used as a theoretical construct. I stand to be corrected, but I want to be corrected by authoritative sources, not by personal websites returned by a Google search.

I've deleted the worst of the unreferenced claims from this article, which has left it somewhat emasculated, so it needs to be filled out, but a decision will have to be made about the direction it's going to take. The article should probably seek to answer these questions: (1) Does international English exist? (2) Who says it does? (3) If we had to write an article in international English, how would we find out how to write it? (4) If it's mostly a theoretical construct used by academics, what is the purpose of it; and what does it tell us about the future of the language and the current influences upon it? (5) Who are the academics who mostly discuss it; and what do they say? (6) Are language schools teaching it; and if so, where and how? My own view is that the subject is not worth the work. Slim 09:15, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but I should add please don't feel you have to do anything because it's a lot of work. Slim 21:55, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks much Maurreen. I purposely stayed away for a couple of days to let things cool down. I very much appreciate your work and your getting others involved. Jallan 03:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Objecting to a FAC for want of a comma

Are you now proposing that as far as FACs are proposed, every nuance of the MOS should be strictly adhered to? Even the bits where people have been suggesting we don't get so wound up about because it's not binding? If so, I can see our arguments on the details of Oxford commas and "US" rearing their ugly heads again. I hope you reconsider and withdraw your objection, jguk 23:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is this in the MOS? I've checked the main MOS and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and can't find it there either. I can't find it anywhere, in fact. Slim 00:54, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team

Hi, Sundar. I was wondering whether you're still interested in this project and whether you have any suggestions or comments. Maurreen 08:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Maureen. Of late, I'm not able to devote a lot of time to Wikipedia. However, I continue to make some small edits. I am in principle a supporter of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, but sorry that I won't be able to contribute actively and significantly for the effort. I'll continue to watch that, though. -- Sundar 06:27, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Commas in dates

Hi Maurreen, would you mind supplying a reference for the second comma thing in September 11, 2001, attacks? I see you've placed an objection to it becoming a featured article because of it. I'm intrigued by this because you mentioned it to me a few weeks ago, and raised a similar objection with Bernard Williams. I haven't been able to find any references regarding a comma in a date that is a stand-alone phrase and not part of a sentence. I've checked AP, CP, Guardian and Globe & Mail style books, as well as Strunk and White, and Bill Walsh's Lapsing into a Comma. I'm wondering if you've misunderstood apposition. In this case, the date modifies the word "attack". I could be wrong, of course. I do know that the second-comma-in-a date rule was taught in America in the 70s, but I'm not sure it's taught nowadays. If you have a style guide reference, would you mind supplying a quote and a page number? I'm interested in knowing who's saying what about this issue, and I'm very surprised I haven't been able to find anything. Slim 00:54, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problem with your suggestion. Best, Slim 06:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Olive branch

Thanks, Maurreen. Very decent of you and I'm glad to accept and return your well wishes. You feel very strongly about language and I certainly understand that (I am also a copy editor). I can see how what I wrote could raise your hackles and I hope that you'll understand that it's not personal animosity, just the situation and, as you suggest, a lapse in communication that led to our having a (very minor) contretemps.Dr Zen 05:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Compared to" or "compared with"?

Oh boy, we could get into a great copy editing debate over that one! Then we could arm-wrestle about "teen-age" vs. "teenage"! (I bow to your change, since I'm not sure which way I prefer and your other tweaks were right on the money.) - DavidWBrooks 13:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was a copy editor for a half-dozen years at the Nashua Telegraph before returning to reporting. (I decided I had to go back the day a reporter came up when I was page designing and said "I've got a good story", and my first response was: "How long is it?") - DavidWBrooks 13:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Red links

LOL, I'm laughing at the comment above.  :-)

I wondered whether, on your travels through the Manual of Style and related pages, you had come across any guidelines for red links. I always remove red links from articles, but I've just encountered an editor who insists on actually editing them into articles, even for very obscure organizations that will likely never be written about. They make articles look badly edited and hard to read, in my view. I was therefore wondering whether there's a policy or suggestion about wikifying in general (number of blue links in articles) and red links specifically, but I've looked around and can't find anything. Please don't go to any trouble searching, but if you happen to see something, please let me know.

Hope all is well elsewhere. SlimVirgin 06:02, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen, that is extremely helpful, thank you. In case of it's interest to you, I found what I feel is an error on that page, and I've posted it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (links). It says that external links used to create articles should be listed under "External links", but elsewhere in Wikipedia, it says that any material used to create an article must be listed under "References". This might explain (in part) why over 40 per cent of Featured Articles have no references, and why so many nominations fail because they have no References section. I'd like to rewrite that bit, but don't know if that's allowed because it's a policy document. SlimVirgin 23:01, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Credibility

How goes the Wikipedia Credibility struggle? From what I've read, it seem obvious the community isn't going to go for anything very elaborate or constrictive. But we must find a way to at least disclaim the latest anon or other low-trust edits. Have you been making any progress anywhere on this front? Tom H. 21:36, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have decided for the time being that this issue is important enough that I am dedicating my User page to it. What is your reaction to the proposal there? I have actually backed off quite a bit from an approval process. Tom H. 14:18, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the good feedback. It is not a perfect proposal, but it might be about the least we could do to get a little credibility without upsetting our status quo. Tom H. 19:15, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Original research

No worries, Maurreen, I didn't take it that way. SlimVirgin 05:20, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Cite sources

I'd like to suggest that Cite sources become policy and not just a guideline. Is that something you would support? SlimVirgin 08:23, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't want to see articles deleted. They're not currently deleted for being NPOV or for containing original research: they're just fixed, if fixable. It would be the same with cite sources. Really, I just want something that will concentrate editors' minds on fact-checking and references, and will strengthen the hand of editors who ask for references. Also, I feel bad for the featured article nominees. They work very hard on their articles, produce some great stuff, then suddenly there are a thousand objections hitting them because of lack of references (and rightly so); yet it isn't spelled out to them anywhere that they MUST provide references. In my view, no original research and cite sources go hand in hand and should both be policy, because the only way I can show that my edit isn't original research is to cite my source. I've put up a note at Wikipedia Talk:Cite sources too. SlimVirgin 20:31, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Categorization of people

Hi Maurreen,

Quite some time ago you asked twice whether Wikipedia:Categorization of people should still be RfC. Sorry for not noticing (and reacting) any sooner. No, this article should no longer be RfC, neither should it any longer be "thinktank" either, I suppose.

I found no further remarks nor comments regarding this guideline proposal, so I think I can move it to category:wikipedia policies and guidelines straight away (or is a "semi-policy"-period advisable?)

PS: accidently I saw you had been active on Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development) archive (without reading that whole archive). With the help of "categorization of People"-guideline I had re-written the "category definition" of "category:terrorists". After considerable time, that description of "terrorists" still seems to stand...

--Francis Schonken 17:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for removing categorization of people from RfC. I had a big laugh about "Interest in policy development seems to have died out...": come & see Dutch wikipedia where policy development is a very hot topic right now! --Francis Schonken 08:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand, sorry to have misread. I think all the "terrorist fuss" was rather linked to American presidential elections at that time (partially linked to the Bush administration using a rather, let's say, "unconventional" definition of terrorism - so the definition of terrorism was a political issue overflowing into wikipedia). No wonder less people are interested in it now. And no, I don't think this ever should be subject of a wikipedia policy/guideline, it is too "ad hoc". I prefer creative solutions, like the one I tried at List of borderline fictional characters for "Guantanamo bay top terrorists". Found out this morning this had been removed from the list some 1 1/2 month ago. Tried to restore the point this morning - we'll see how long it stands. --Francis Schonken 10:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Newspapers

Why is there need for both newspapers by continent and newspapers by country categories? - SimonP 03:00, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

The same argument would apply to almost all subjects, but pretty much nothing else has by continent categories splitting up the by country articles. - SimonP 03:16, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Maurreen

I am still working on the title. I am asking around. I am considering "Cultural effects on politics" or "Cultural determinates on politics". I like the latter. On the Deletion vote page, can I get you to clarify your vote as a "keep" or a "weak keep". I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks.WHEELER 16:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)