Jump to content

User talk:Maurreen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeffq (talk | contribs) at 08:34, 21 December 2004 (Global English). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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: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:

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 Johnston 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 Johnston 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maurreen&oldid=8672765"