User talk:Maurreen/archive 2

• User talk:Maurreen

Archive 11 problem

When Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive11 was created, a good chunk of discussion was chopped off the bottom. I just added the missing material to the archive. Hope I did it right :-) My question: what do we do now regarding the proposed changes? I'm kinda new around here and don't know - seems to have fizzled out. -Vsmith 23:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Manual of Style poll

A well publicised poll like this gets lots of votes and together with many votes, lots of opinions too. It is a useful gauge. Even if consensus is not immediately obtained, it may suggest where a better answer lies. For instance, some of the objections already noted can be easily dealt with.

As far as why am I interested in changing policy: it's because I don't like my perfectly good English being 'corrected'. (Conversely, I do like my bad English to be corrected!) I write, and mostly read, UK English. It's what I'm most comfortable with. This is the rationale behind the compromise between styles that the Manual of Style already supports. (As an aside, I must note that I prefer a well written article in US English over a poorly written one in UK English.)

I'm more than happy to compromise between styles on an international encyclopaedia written by the general public. It seems sensible - and why correct perfectly good English when there are many articles out there that have misspellings and are ungrammatical. The compromise between styles should be total, demanding only consistency within articles. To leave 2 residual points because some people prefer one form of language over another, when people the world over adopt differing practices, does not seem right. Demand good English, demand consistency, but do not specify one form of English over another. jguk 07:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The poll is a good way to get a wide range of views. Within 12 hours, 16 people have already voted. (Compare this with how many views we got on style guide.) Many have left comments. These are valuable. They may indicate consensus to change. They may indicate where further discussion should be directed. They may indicate that further discussion is futile. Let the poll run its course. Absent these views, any discussion would be carried out in a sort of vacuum. jguk 08:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Well, I'm not an expert, but I'd like to help you resolve the dispute. What is it about and where can I find the previous discussion documented? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:10, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Maurreen, can you summarize, why this poll is bothering you so much? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 18:51, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

AMA Request for Assistance

Maurreen,

If you are having a problem with a particular user, than it would appear that you are in a dispute. An Advocate is able to assist you in attempting to resolve this dispute in a way that conforms with the Wikipedia basic standard of justice. From one on one discussion with the user, all the way to arbitration if it becomes necessary. An Advocate cannot act as a mediator, but can assist you in resolving the dispute through the proper channels. You can read the member statements and contact an Advocate of your choosing or you can outline your problem in your request and someone will most likely volunteer or be appointed.

Best of luck in resolving your dispute.

Skyler1534 21:50, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Culture of Greece

Culture of Greece is this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Manual of Style apostrophe changes

Maurreen, I'm curious why you changed several occurrences of "straight" apostrophes to the so-called "curved" version in someone else's Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style postings (but not globally across the page), perhaps ironically in defiance the Manual of Style itself (8.1.1, Use straight quotation marks and apostrophes). I can't quite see the purpose of it. — Jeff Q 23:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You say I changed apostrophes or quote marks in other people's postings. I plead ignorance. The only thing I can think of is that sometimes I write in Word and copy stuff back and forth and don't often notice the apostrophe or quote style. Maurreen 04:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm talking about your edit at 00:06, 9 Nov 2004[1], the first of five consecutive edits you made on that page. It seemed unusual also because you had taken care to add summaries to each of the other four edits. Perhaps it was an accidental premature save? (I'm afraid I do this on occasion myself.) If so, I can switch the apostrophes back, unless you or someone else beats me to it. — Jeff Q 05:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't despair about a comma!

I just noticed your post on the Village Pump, and just wanted to by sympathetic and point you to m:Wikistress (and if you wish Wikipedia:The_Wikipedian's Prayer, YMV). Keep up your good work; comma's arn't everything. JesseW 10:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

U.S. embargo against Cuba

You voted for U.S. embargo against Cuba, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

RfC on Call for help

Hi,

thanks for beeing interested in this page. The reason for the request for comment is explained in the "Restoration of removed paragraphs" of the talk page.

The origin of this is the modification performed by Wrolf on 13 Sep 2004, 15:44. I asked for explainations on his user talk page, and as he did not answered, I reverted his changes. He discovered this and did the changes again, criticising my action in the "CDang's Contributions" section of the article's talk page.

As I did not want to go into an edition war, I posted the request for comment. Here's the story... Please best post on my french talk page, posting in english is OK.

Cdang 13:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maureen the Newspaper editor and marine quit flying the US flag each time you edit

Hi Maureen

I have been noticing your political edits all over Occupation of Iraq article – These edits do not seem in any way to contribute towards the knowledge on the subject in a neutral manner. For instance you have removed all references to US soldiers committing atrocities in Iraq and Civilian deaths. You have removed all references that the war was illegal even though the UN declared the war illegal – We only quoted from the UN Gen assembly - you have even removed the words of the UN secretary Gen on Iraq.... You have removed references from a dozen newspapers that report on the occupation of Iraq as that puts the US in a poor light. You have removed the account on the violence on the Iraqi people and their suffering from the page.

But you know the rest of the world has a point of view as well along with many Iraqi people who visit this page OCCUPATION OF IRAQ and contribute to the reality of whats going on in that country under occypation. The page is ruined now with signs of your grubby deletions all over it in favour of your president & country.

Goodall

VfD vote

Could you go into more details on your votes on VfD? It's helpful to explain, if just a little, why you vote the way you do. --Improv 08:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dayton, Ohio

I noticed your change placing Ohio in "west-central Ohio" to "southwest Ohio." I was thinking about this and it occurred to me that this could use some more exposition, because as a native of the place, I know that both are equally common designations for the place. Most official/government designations place it in west-central Ohio, although southwest is also common, if you're just dividing the state up into quarters. Acsenray 20:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Dictatorship of the fans of protection RE Talk:Occupation of Iraq

Dear Maurreen

So now you wish to get the page protected and go against the very ethos of wikipedia the collective opinion of a worldwide community, which democratically arrives at agreement via counter edits and discussion.

The edits that must remain are the few lines on the casualties of the war and the NPOV paragraph on the legality of the war which is just a UN quote.

To bring another point up, You as a ex marine soldier have added to the article the modus oparandi and equipment of the US marine force in their occupation of Iraq and a lot of other nonsense, I suggest if you wish to make the article shorter edit out the irrelevant section on US forces and all such rubbish and concentrate on the effects of the occupation on the people of Iraq. Like Lawlessness and the diminishing of the quality of life even if this takes just one paragraph in a NPOV manner and of course do not edit out the fact that 100,000 people have died to date (the fact reported by the BBC and the UN)

Anyway happy editing, experience shows that wikipedia is an excellent educational tool, and contributors gradually learn to use the NPOV concept in writing from their peers.

Happy editing

Goodall

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupation_of_Iraq%2C_2003-2004"

Edited Out Personal criticism

Point accepted, I was wrong, Edited Out Personal criticism in all refrences to yourself in my postings here and elsewhere

regards

Goodall

Economy of Europe

Hi, I noticed you'd earlier supported this new article's nomination for Collaboration of the Week. It has been re-nominated, having been worked on a little and has gained backers. Simply add your support here. Obviously such a big project needs as many users with relevant knowledge as possible, so hopefully this will promote it a little. Thanks, Grunners 00:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

thanks for your suggestions, will give them a try. As to the article already being more than a stub, some of us feel that it is still incredibly short compared to what it will be when completed, with many sections either blank or very brief. I relaise it's a long shot for CotW, but no harm in trying eh? :) Grunners 01:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for comment: Jeremiah Duggan

Maurreen, thank you for the idea of both sides submitting their preferred version. That's an excellent idea. I'll write my version up asap. One thing you could help me with if you have time -- how do I create a subpage for Talk:Death of Jeremiah Duggan? I read that I need to put a slash at the end, but it hasn't worked for me so far. I thought each party could put their preferred version on a subpage as you suggested, then we could direct editors to that page on the RfC page. Thanks again, Slim 08:38, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Maurreen, cancel that request about how to create a subpage.I just worked out how to do it. Slim 08:45, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

Maureen, thanks for inviting me to possibly work more closely with you on Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards, and I may take that up. Right now, I'm still trying to get my head around it. As you can see, I've just placed on the talk page some summaries of what you archived, and I think that you can see some patterns are emerging. I'm probably going to be off Wikipedia the next 36 hours or so (maybe a little less), but I hope to try to focus things down to the proverbial 7 &plusminus; 2 key questions when I'm back on. Keep up your good work here, I'm not sure we are yet to a point where two particular people collaborating has any special value, but feel free to contact me on whatever you think might be useful. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:46, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Occupation of Iraq

Maurreen, I've responded to your RfC regarding the Occupation of Iraq, and have left my view on the Talk page. I also did a slight copy-edit of some sections of the article. Thanks to your very helpful suggestion regarding Death of Jeremiah Duggan, both parties put their preferred version on user subpages, and they are almost identical now due to various compromises. So your suggestion worked very well, and seems to have drawn what was a tiresome dispute to an end (fingers crossed). Thank you for responding to the RfC. Slim 02:09, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Try editing this one

Maurreen, I thought you might appreciate a wonderful sentence I came across in an article that should remain unnamed:

" . . . such ideas have proven to gruesome to even consider thinking about in non-theocratic and non-dictatorial states as bigotous and greedy (yet re-occuring) horrors like the holy crusades , the Spanish Inquisition ,holocaust ,slavery ,Khmer Rouge ,Chechnya ,japanese occupation of korea , suggest that any central or broad or unspoken advocation or allowance of separatism (religious, cultural, ethnic, educational,linguistic...) is very harmful for establishing stable society that is reflective of a worldy and tolerating government, and the culture of its denizens."

Perhaps the issues we've been trying to sort out are not so bad after all . . . LOL Slim 20:04, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Standards

Hello Maurreen - I've commented where invited. Thank-you for the welcome. Unfortunately, the exigencies of my day job mean I can't spend as much time on Wikipedia as I'd like, which is a pity, as the problem of bringing more depth, breadth and credibility is a good one to work on. Good luck with your efforts. WLD 21:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I notice that you haven't actually signed on at Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards#Members, which seems odd, because you've contributed as much as anyone. I encourage you to do so.

Anyway, I just did my massive overhaul of that project page. I think I did a fair job of summing up where we stand, and I hope I won't take too many hits for doing such a massive overhaul. It seemed the most likely way to move this forward rather than just keep re-covering the same ground, but we shall see. Please, take a look, tell me what you think. I suspect that one key to making this meaningful is for this to be a think tank, and for other, more concrete ideas to grow out of it. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:56, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected editorial guidance

Thanks for putting together Wikipedia:Selected editorial guidance (and for pointing me to it). I think a lot of the pages listed there ought to be resurrected, and the links will make that a bit easier. -- Rbellin 05:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Style guide

Thanks for the compliment. It is so obvious to me, as it is to you, both how dangerous and silly the introduction of this rule would be. That the topic floated off onto general word substitution confused the issues. Jallan 06:28, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Copy editing

You're welcome Maurreen. I was laughing at copy editing a piece on copy editing (which, incidentally, I would have written copy-editing, but I didn't change it because I'm probably wrong). I was thinking: "This is where I'll make all the typos." BTW, have you seen the recent reverts at September 11, 2001? At one point, it read: "September 11, 2001 was a coordinated series of terrorist/freedom fighter attacks . . . " However, Rebroad says he has seen the light. Fingers crossed. Slim 16:19, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Sept. 11

Interesting discussion regarding the missing comma. However, I don't agree that there is one missing. I would say that 2001 is in apposition to September 11 if and only if you're trying to distinguish the 2001 attack from the 2002 one, as in: "During the September 11, 2001, attack, X happened, as opposed to during the September 11, 2002, attack, when it was Y." (But that is such an awkward construction, the sentence would be rewritten anyway.) As there is only one September 11, and as this is a title using the name of the attack (note: it is about the name, not the date as such), I would have one comma at most. Actually, I would have preferred September 11 2001 with no comma to make it easier for people to find, regardless of the rules of punctuation. It has become an iconic phrase, no longer referring to a date alone but to a series of images, and can therefore make up its own rules, I would say. In fact, I would have had 9/11. I know it's an American construction but it was named in America, so American usage would have been fine, I feel. "September 11, 2001" has just over five million Google entries and 9/11 has over 30 million. As this is an online encyclopaedia, the purpose of which is that people be able to find information fast and free, I would definitely have gone with the most common usage. Names can make up their own rules, as in SlimVirgin, for example.  :-) Slim 18:56, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

International English

Sorry, I know of no particular web sites. What I wrote was from material I've picked up here and there, including, of course, web sites I've browsed, but nothing I would know how to find my way back to. You might search on "international english" and "world english" in Google and take it from there. Jallan 22:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

forum

Thanks,

Good catch. I meant to archive it of course. It will be a great day when Wikipedia has discussion forums for each article!

Chris

Style guide

"If having the style guide in American English is unacceptable, does that mean that you believe the style guide should not follow the style guide?" Maurreen 16:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL LOL Good one, Maurreen. Slim 17:52, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Featured article

Maurreen, you are more than welcome. I guessed that's what it was, and I don't blame you. Speaking of standards, I am trying to get an article I wrote accepted as a featured article. I wonder whether you would be interested in commenting on it. Don't feel you have to, as I know you are busy, and there will be no hard feelings whatsoever if you do, don't, or do but are negative about it. I welcome all comments, good and bad, and I do mean that. The article is Bernard Williams and the featured articles page is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I believe the routine is you say under the article "support" or "object" and say why. I already have a couple of negative comments, and have cleaned the article up a little in response. But, as I said, don't feel you have to look at it because you already have a thousand things to do. Slim 05:33, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Maurreen, thank you! Your comments have given me a bit of a boost, because I really wasn't sure about it. You know what it's like when you've spent all day writing something - you end up not being able to judge it. Any suggestions/input from you would be very much appreciated, Slim 06:24, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for positive statements and the suggestions, Maurreen, which I'll be addressing today. I liked the large photo too but someone else has already reduced it. I'll be rewriting "lean, attractive, energetic" etc, as almost everyone has objected to it. :-) Yes, I do write outside Wikipedia, by the way. Is it just me, or has Wikipedia been very slow recently? I've had some difficulty getting into it in the last two days: today it took about 20 minutes to open my watchlist. I'm wondering whether others are experiencing this, or whether there's just something wrong with my computer, although I'm not noticing a slowdown on other websites I visit. Slim 17:19, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Maurreen, I just tried to send you an e-mail to expand a little on what I do outside Wikipedia, but it said you hadn't entered one. Drop me an e-mail if you'd like to know more. Slim 19:54, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)