User talk:Masterpiece2000/Archive 3

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bio
Hi, thanks for your message. I'm not sure that this will have the answers to all of your questions, but some of the info can be found here:  And other sources are here:  --Elonka 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:)
Hello Masterpiece2000!

Yes he has an arts degree!

You sad something I wanted to here from someone since long ago. He deserves to have an FA, and even one of the best FAs. I would also like to expand it; it is almost empty compared to his great achievements and accomplishments. We need to try and start writing his illustrious, but the biggest concern is finding reliable sources, from newspapers and books.

Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with you on 1000%. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard Ayres
That looks like a fine start. It's already been tagged by WP Biography; I'm not a member of their project so I don't normally rate articles, but I'm sure they'll eventually get around to it. They have people who seem to do it full-time. Chubbles (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

An alternate home for non-notable biographies?
Hi Masterpiece2000, I see that you've been active in creating biography articles, and also being involved in AfD debates. One of the major issues, obviously, is that people create bios of individuals who others consider non-notable. It occurred to me that a reasonable course of action would be to host such bios at a site set up for the purpose, and I went ahead and set it up: www.wikipopuli.com. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the site, and to welcome any articles you'd care to post there. TheYellowCabin (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note
I appreciate the encouragement, Masterpiece2000! If you have any suggestions and/or would like to put up content on Wikipopuli, both would be most welcome. TheYellowCabin (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks
 .: RFA thanks :.

Strange Cargo Arts Company
You tagged this for speedy (correctly) but (incorrectly) as patent nonsense. It wasn't nonsense, but it was promotional requiring a rewrite. Please check through Criteria for speedy deletion to pick the right rationale. Thanks. And keep up the good work! Tyrenius (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. You might find this post of interest. Tyrenius (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That was interesting. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:bureaucrat
I have too much work already, and I am too controversial for it, too, I am afraid. PS. Thank you very much for the award!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Numbered list
A numbered list? That's a good idea. Maybe I should make the text small, too, because it's become quite long. Badagnani (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Theory of mind article
Hello,

I would be happy to help:

A "theory of mind" (ToM) impairment describes a difficulty with perspective taking. This is also sometimes referred to as 'mindblindness'. This means individuals with a ToM impairment would have a hard time seeing things from any other perspective than their own. Individuals who experience a theory of mind deficit have difficulty determining the intentions of others, lack understanding of how their behavior affects others, and have a difficult time with social reciprocity.

It is widely believed that individuals with an ASD do not possess a ToM, or have impaired ToM. In 1985, Baron-Cohen, Leslie and Frith published the first psychological research which suggested that children with autism do not employ a theory of mind.

NOTE: There was a researcher who spoke to some new finding that suggests individuals with an ASD might have a ToM, but gain it later in life. I will try to find her research for you. She presented at the "Stages of Autism: Adolescence & Beyond" Conference, May 15-16, 2006, Hamilton Convention Centre. Are you adding a page with only one research article? What about doing an article on the whole topic of "ToM"? I know that most neurotypical people do not gain a ToM until age 5-6 or so. Don't quote me on this exact age (I would have to look it up), but it is an interesting topic to have an article on. Good luck, and let me know if you need any other help/suggestions. --Svernon (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA Card
My RFA →→→   

Dear Masterpiece2000, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (29/5/5).

I understand why you voted oppose, and I will take the advice that you have given. And now that I am a sysop, I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. &mdash; Chetblong T  C 21:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, I'm glad you perceive me as a friendly person! Happy editing!! — Cuyler  91093  -  Соитяівцтіоиѕ  03:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I can has thankspam?
  Quick, let's delete the front page!

OhanaUnited's RFA
 .: Thank you! :.

Thanks
Thanks :) --Bhadani (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BABEL
Please consider adding the useful language known userboxes to your userpage, so other editors can know what languages you speak (helps with verification of sources, translations, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See, this is why the Babel templates were designed :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply
When a source can be found, the passage can be replaced - its not particularly well-written, anyway. And we have reliable sources that say "Atheist", so that has to be in there. The talkpage archives have a long discussion on it. Relata refero (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

GAs
Hello, it's nice to hear from you. If you haven't significantly contributed to the article (e.g. you've reverted vandalism, or fixed a typo, minor stuff) then you can pass it for GA. Hope this helps. Regards, Keilana | Parlez ici 13:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Anna O.
I've moved it, as requested. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there...
Good to meet someone else dedicated to enhancing the Richard Dawkins page. My hope is that it may eventually be considered as a featured article. AC+79 3888 (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi, Masterpiece. :) Good to see you. I'd be glad to give you some tips. I'd start off by wanting to know where you think you'd like to help out as an admin, which can give me some idea where you might want to work to develop & demonstrate those skills. Based on my experience with you and a look through your recent contributions, I think you're a fine content contributor. You seem always very civil in dealing with other editors. Given our collaborations, I think you'd probably do better to request an Editor review to get a good (I hope), neutral (I hope) look at your work. Better to do this sooner rather than later, as it is perpetually backlogged and may take a while. :) I'll watch your talk page for follow-ups. If I seem to miss something, feel free to leave me a note pointing it out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also be pleased to help you out. Where do you anticipate working, and where do you work now? Where do you feel you need improvement? There's always areas to branch out, and an admin should be well-versed in a lot of areas, being well-rounded is often looked for at RfA. Keilana | Parlez ici 15:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Oxnam
Hello PFHLai. I don't want to publicize Oxnam's illness on Wikipedia's MainPage. I think the hook "...that Robert Oxnam, author of a bestselling memoir describing his dissociative identity disorder, was president of the Asia Society for over a decade?" would be better. English is my second language. Although I am comfortable with the language, sometimes I can sound rude. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, Masterpiece2000. Yes, I like the new hook by jnestorius.  I just don't think it's right to post a line on Wikipedia's MainPage saying "Oxnam... is mentally ill" without any context.  If the hook says Oxnam himself wrote and published a book about his mental illness, it's alright.  Take care. --PFHLai (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I looked at your contributions and you have done a great job for Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, Masterpiece2000. You've done a great job in Wikipedia, too!  Happy editing. :-) --PFHLai (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Secular humanist Wikipedians
Hello Jc37. I noticed that the category Secular Humanist Wikipedians has been renamed to Secular humanist Wikipedians. Can you explain me the reason for the change? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While I did not peform the rename, I presume it was a question of capitalisation. Compare to Secular humanism. I hope this helps : ) - jc37 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Bolesław Prus" GA
"Bolesław Prus" has been passed as a good article, thanks to your initiative and tireless efforts. Without these, I don't know when the GA status might have been conferred. Certainly Prus's own compatriots on Wikipedia never showed interest in pursuing it.

Thanks! Your friend, Nihil novi (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Years usually not wikilinked when alone
Just FYI, guidelines recommend not wikilinking to years when they are alone, without specific context and rationale for linking to them. Hence it's "(born 1951)", not "(born 1951)". On the other hand, full dates should always be wikilinked so as to ensure the date will be rendered as formatted according to the reader's date preferences; hence, "(born September 18, 1980)", not "(born September 18, 1980)". Happy editing, Robert K S (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpful suggestions. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Humanists
Well, we're a varied bunch to say the least. I'm interested mainly in the beginnings of humanism in Renaissance Europe. Thanks for your kind note on my talk page.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 05:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Adminship? I'm flattered and I appreciate the gesture, but dude, I just come here to edit, and that takes up enough time of my life. I already consume enough time as it is while being a moderator on a history forum. Seriously, if I became an admin for wiki I'd never get outside! Lol. Plus, reading over the requirements of an admin here, it sounds like a difficult job. I've seen the nasty vicious fights between people here on wiki; I'd hate to have to be the moderator and judge in between that. I have to admit, I enjoy the life of a scholar much more than what I perceive the life of a police officer (i.e. admin) to be. I appreciate the gesture and thank you for your very thoughtful offer, but I'm afraid I have to decline.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! I have left a message on your talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Richard Dawkins FA Status
Hello Masterpiece2000, that's great news. I really do hope that it is accepted, it would be fantastic. It will take effort to maintain, but I'm sure we could do it. AC+79 3888 (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to add, I've taken a look at the discussion for the nomination, and I'm going to get to work on some of the problems that were highlighted. Regards, AC+79 3888 (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Masterpiece, please see the instructions at WP:FAC regarding more than one nom at a time; I've removed the second nom, which you can re-submit once your first has garnered significant support. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the instructions at WP:FAC; it's there. It's also not a good sign that your second nom is at WP:LOCE.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Responded on my talk; Dawkins is still quite a ways from garnering support, and the second article looks weak. Following both would be an undertaking even for experienced FA writers. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article might help you understand the process better. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Masterpiece, I'm sorry: I owe you an explanation. I recognized your name when it showed up at FAC, and I thought it was because you were a FAC regular (since that's where I spend most of my time), and you would know that I act as the delegate there for Raul, the featured article director. I just realized that I actually know you from elsewhere (the Theory of Mind article), so you probably wonder why my responses were so brief !  I was assuming you knew the ropes at FAC.  Because I recognized your name, I thought you were a FAC regular; had I realized I actually knew you from elsewhere, I would have more carefully explained FAC procedures.  I didn't remove the FAC because of my time as an editor on Wiki; I removed it in my capacity as a delegate of the featured article director, Raul.  I'm sorry for not giving you a better explanation.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem! Thank you for the note. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Discospinster
Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... disco spinster   talk  23:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins
I don't really have time to contribute to or review this one right now, though the lead looks a bit short for one thing. Richard001 (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you for your reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Semiprotect
Semi-protection probably isn't needed now since the vandalism is manageable. But I'll be sure to keep an eye out as I have Richard Dawkins watchlisted, thanks. Spellcast (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins
I'll review again later, but I don't usually find mistakes throughout—I may as well copy-edit. To do so for every FAC would be a full-time job, and my intention is to have as wide a footprint as possible in the torrent of FACs. Can you research similar articles—edit history pages and edit summaries—to locate good copy-editors who are close to the field? Tony  (talk)  05:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have send a message to User:LaraLove. Thanks for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

 * Congratulations! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for the comment. Looks like I'm headed not only for adminship, but also for the WP:100 list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Richard Dawkins FA candidacy
Hello M2000. I'm quite saddened that the Richard Dawkins page was not accepted for FA status. I have since been looking around at other FAs, and it seems to be better than quite a lot of them. It cannot be far from the required standard. I'll continue to try to iron out any faults I see, but I cannot find much wrong with it! AC+79 3888 (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello AC+79 3888. Yes, it is not far from the required standard. It will achieve FA status someday. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am baffled as to why "Richard Dawkins" was not promoted to FA. After I had done some copyediting a couple of weeks ago, I thought the article was ready. In fact, I was so irritated by the trivial changes some people kept making that I stopped following what they were doing, confident that it would pass in spite of them. How soon can the nomination be resubmitted? Nihil novi (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I will see the article tomorrow. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

TH3
Why do you think the TH3 article should be deleted?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.104.121 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it was a non-notable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Richard Dawkins
Hello, Masterpiece. Regarding edits to Richard Dawkins, I agree that religion should be mentioned in the lead, but I feel that the word is overused in the opening couple of paragraphs, and it does not read well as a result.

Specifically here:

He has since written several best-selling popular books, and made regular appearances on television and radio programmes discussing evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and religion.

In addition to his biological work, Dawkins is well-known for his views on organised religion. He is an outspoken antireligionist and atheist;[3] a secular humanist, sceptic, scientific rationalist,[4] and a supporter of the Brights movement.[5]

Perhaps we could alter it to a different word in a couple of the cases. Maybe "faith", or something similar?

Regards.AC+79 3888 (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think the word is overused. The word religion is used two times. One is about antireligion. I don't think it would be apporpriate to use faith. What's your view? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I also feel that we should call Dawkins an antitheist. The term antireligionist is not common. It might be accurate to call him an antitheist. He is an opponent of theism. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I fully agree. That would solve it. Antitheism is an appropriate term. Thanks. AC+79 3888 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Antitheism" is a good, much under-used word that has not yet become fraught with bigoted emotion. Nihil novi (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok! The problem is solved! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do either of you know how soon it can be re-submitted? I would like to do so. AC+79 3888 (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * AC, I think we should wait for a week. There are still some flaws in the article. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, sure, I agree. It has improved a lot in the past week but there's still more to be done. Regards. AC+79 3888 (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have to take some necessary steps. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Awesome!
Thank you for this most awesome medal; I thank you for your sincere gesture, sir. If I am late in getting this message to you I am sorry, I've been busting my hump at the Library of Congress in Washington DC today and yesterday, trying to get my gosh-darn HIST 300 research paper in order. I hope you understand! Thanks times 1,000,000, dude. Peace!-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 00:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Eric, thank you for appreciating the award. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation Templates
M2000, thanks for the comment. I wasn't aware that it should be the name of a person, but I will bear that in mind for future editing. I will try to check all the references on the Richard Dawkins article over the next few days, we are getting there slowly but surely. Regards.--AC+79 3888 (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Yes, we are getting there. We have to fix the references. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Professor Sir Michael Rutter
Can you tell me why the title is changed to just Michael Rutter from the body of the text when this is his official title legitimately earned?

Many thanks

KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, KingsleyMiller, it is unnecessary to mention 'Professor'. For example, Richard Dawkins is a Professor. We don't mention in the title that he is a Professor. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)