User talk:Maurreen/archive 6

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)


 * 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)

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)

My RFA
 Thanks  Thanks for your recent support on my RfA which passed 91/0/0. If you ever need anything, feel free to leave me a message! Gflores Talk 06:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Tawkerbot2
You got a message for this edit. It looks like a bad redirect. j o s h b u d d y talk 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * 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)

Latin America won!
Joyous | Talk 19:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

“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 দ 01:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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 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)

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. 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)

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)

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

Wikipedia 1.0 Barnstar


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)

"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)

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)

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
Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 01:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

Please Help
Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 02:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

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)

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)

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)


 * 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 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)

Please help on Ancient Egypt
Posted by Pruneau 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team

Those Hurricanes!
So, are you a hockey fan yet? Sunray 08:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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&mdash;and no question that hockey is a part of our culture&mdash;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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)