User talk:Maveric149
|
|
If you've been frequenting the RecentChanges page, you might already expect that I am a Wikipediholic -- yep, I admit it (score = 82).
Problem now is, sleeping has switched from a full (i.e. normal) to part time occupation.... oh well - you only live once, there's plenty of time to rest later...
Mougie-1024.JPG
| Contents |
Re: text move from Boston article
Sorry. I just wanted to get it done, and was doing it quickly.--AaronS 01:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- Not a problem. :) --mav
Mav, would you take a look at this article
The first half is fine, but part five sort of comes out of nowhere. Is this kosher? I've never seen anything like it on here before. *Kat* 04:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- As of May 14th it looks fine to me. --mav
200.46. ...
I see you came across this anon (native Spanish speaker) at War crimes in Manchukuo. For more on the state of play of his interesting contributions - often several new pages a day - see User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan. Charles Matthews 16:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Been busy. I'll take a look at this later. --mav
FAC/Civil Air Patrol
Hi Mav!
I removed the AID tag and I expanded the lead in the article. Now that this has been done, would you be willing to reconsider your vote? Thanks! Linuxbeak 02:52, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Inline cites have been added. Would you consider a support now? ;-) Linuxbeak 11:02, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Most of the tasks you've outlined have now been addressed. Linuxbeak 00:02, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Okay; I guess I was wrong. A few more tasks have been addressed, specificially all of task numbers 4 and 5, the beginning part of task number 2 (added photo and addressed term of "benevolent entity). Concerning the benevolent entity thing... I just want to reiterate that the exact wording of Public Law 476, 79th Congress, 2nd Session, specifically states that CAP is "solely of a benevolent character". This is why I strongly disagree with your statement that it is POV. Task number 1 has been more or less completed with the exception of inline cites. Linuxbeak 10:55, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
- So you are saying that the 79th U.S. Congress is an inherently neutral body? If they used that wording then say so. But just throwing around the wording they used without attributing that wording to them, is a violation of our NPOV policy. --mav
Glacier National Park (United States) (again)
Hi, mav. User:Neutrality has moved Glacier National Park (US) to Glacier National Park (United States). He wants to reopen the whole discussion about the (US) disambiguator, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (acronyms)#Rethinking this decision, and has suggested opening a straw poll. You may wish to share your thoughts about this at that Talk page. Thanks! -- hike395 05:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, again! It looks like the (brief) discussion went 5-1 in favor of keeping (US) as the disambiguator. Would you consider moving Glacier National Park (United States) back to Glacier National Park (US) ? Was the discussion enough to establish a consensus? Thanks!! -- hike395 05:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks!!!! --- hike395 05:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Can I use your article about Arkansas and translate it to Swedish to be published on the Swedish Wikipedia?
Geology of the Death Valley area
Damn, I finally get around to reading the article properly to comment on the FAC and it's already been promoted! Anyway, what I would have said on the nomination page is that I really can't fault the content, a very interesting read, but I'd suggest making a couple of presentational adjustments. The lead section is a bit overwhelming at the moment, any chance it could be trimmed a little bit? And the image layout looks a little bit haphazard at the moment, with various different image widths. It might be nice to have them all the same width (or height for the portrait photos). The other thing is I am really curious as to where the names for the various geological features, like Pahrump group and Johnnie formation, come from - random whims of geologists, native american words, some combination of the two?
As the article has already been promoted, you'd be well within your rights to ignore all this, but hey, I can always list it on WP:FARC :) Worldtraveller 07:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- Good points. I agree about the image width issue but the problem is that those images are not large enough to have thumb tags and it is not possible to specify display width while using frame. Longer term I want to replace those photos with higher resolution versions and/or illustrations of paleomaps. Finding information on the type locality of formations is difficult on the web and I don't have a print reference for that. But yes, that would be interesting information to have. --mav
Sharing more thoughts
Hey Mav: It's me, Antonio, again. I wanted to share some thoughts with you.
This past week it came to my mind that our works as writers at wikipedia are like a piece of art, sort of like a Van Gogh or a Salvador Dali. After all, we also communicate something to the reader, the way Van Gogh and Dali said something to their fans with their paintings. Maybe thats why I strive to write my best when I originate an article. Do you agree with that view?
Talking about writing. I'm super-content with being an administrator, but since most of my work here has been writing articles (about two a day per average the past three years; I remember when I used to post four per day at first, phew!) I don't feel like I have time for much else, such as cleanup, vandalism, etc although sometimes I do check. I have wanted to get a nomination for another thing, but this, and the fact that (I think) I documented my particular "affection" towards prescribed drugs in my user page may have affected my chances. Some arguments with other users in the old times also hampered some of the self-nominations Ive had in the past, such as the one for arbitrator, when I nominated myself seriously, but, looking back, in the "voting ballot", it looked like a joke, I was convincingly voted against by about 20-1, with that one vote being my own!
Another thing, I just invited the well known boxing columnist and critic, Tim Graham, who works a column for the New York Daily News and has commented on many Pay Per View fights, to join our team. I hope he does, he would be of great help as far as "the boxing department" concerns. He's an excellent and enthusiastic writer. Let's see what happens!
Well, just always willing to share a thought with you when it comes to my thinking about this great website. I want to let you know that I always appreciate your friendship. I sent Zoe a note yesterday, but I noticed Zoe has been idle since 2004!.
Thanks for everything, and God bless you!
Sincerely yours, "Antonio Mischievious One Martin"
- Hey Antonio - Yep what we do here is like making fine art. And don't bother with housekeeping if you don't have the time or interest. I'm glad to see that you are trying to get other people to contribute to our little art project here. :) --mav
My niece
Hey Mav: I have a situation. My niece is seven years old and very aware of Wikipedia. She was in a rap video and now she is "famous", and she knows how to read {shes also next to me reading as I ask so I have to be careful about how I put this question to you).
She is "famous" as a dancer and wants her biography on Wikipedia and to read it. Can I adtually make a page about her without breaking any wiki-laws? This page would be by no means a permanent page if I can do it, only until she reads it and is happy that "she's here".
Thanks for taking the time to answering this question.
God bless you!
Sincerely yours, "Antonio Famous Uncle Martin"
- Why not just start by setting up an account for her and turning her user page into an article? That would be a sure way to get her in without risking a VfD. --mav
Dear Mav: Thanks! I did it! I hope she likes it.
Im probably going to be idle for about four more days, or untiol I get a new computer as Im using my sister's computer right now. But I cant wait to begin again! Right now Im preparing, in my mind, my next few articles, Luis Fonsi, Valeria Lynch, Solo Para Mujeres and Jack Dempsey vs. Tommy Gibbons, the fight that left a town on Iowa almost broke.
Anyways, thanks for everythong and God bless you! Check her "user page" I think I did a cute little thing for her :)
Sincerely yours, "Antonio UncleSam hehe Martin"
Welding FAC
Hi, I believe I addressed all of your objections on the welding article, so if you could, please let me know if you see anything else that needs improvement. --Spangineer ∞ 23:26, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell
Paul Beardsell edited the Proposed decision page of the arbitration case. My comment [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration), diff [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=13691758&oldid=13691743), please read it before voting on case, the last principle was added by him.Tkorrovi 11:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
FAC
Thanks for your support on welding, and for addressing my concerns on History of the Grand Canyon area. I now support that article for featured status. I also have a question for you on welding - I suggested a new order for the page's contents (User:Nichalp didn't like the current layout), but didn't get any feedback. Would you prefer History, Welding processes, Geometry, Quality, Unusual conditions, Safety issues, Costs, and Trends, or the current order, or something else? Thanks. --Spangineer ∞ 01:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Chicago FA
I have addressed the previous concerns (fixed of course). Want to add your two cents now? Dralwik 02:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Fair use
I am wondering why did you remove the link to WP:Fair Use. --Eleassar777 06:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- It is a self reference. --mav
Self-references are not to be included in articles? Where is this written? Btw, please answer on my talk page, as I have seen your reply only now after already having reverted you. Sorry. ;) --Eleassar777 12:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Cricket pages
The detailed coverage of the English 2005 cricket season makes use of WP technology to the full. Without the slightly unusual approach, it just would not be possible to have these articles. So far, no users have really been confused by the format - even a newbie cricket editor, User:Sam Vimes picked the idea up with no guidance. So I'd be grateful if you'd overlook the unusualness of the approach, and accept that as a small issue compared with the benefits to WP from expanding its coverage (in this case, of the sport of cricket). Kind regards, jguk 06:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- Unusual concepts demand unusual approaches. Please leave these pages as is. Kind regards, jguk 12:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I tried templates to begin with, but Netoholic kept reverting them and being a pain in the neck about it. The articles would not be possible without transclusion, and so I started using the Wikipediaspace instead. It works, the articles are getting better, and WP is improving. Ideally there would be better way to arrange for transclusion of text for the very small number of articles where it is appropriate, but as there isn't, I am making the best of what technology we have. Kind regards, jguk 12:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'd have no problems at all if the pages resided in Templatespace rather than Wikipediaspace as long as none of them end up on TfD. I would, however, like to make them easier to edit than just having a very small "edit" note on the side. Kind regards, jguk 13:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
mmmm Will you hold off Netoholic though when he lists them all on TfD? jguk 18:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. --mav
Attack on Pearl Harbor
Thanks for your note about my work on the Attack on Pearl Harbor article. It's a pleasure to work on an article like that. It was already NPOV, had good paragraphs, and several good references in the external links. I mostly just re-arranged the existing material and filled in the facts or background that seemed to be missing. As I researched the references I found and added other material that seemed relevant. Anyway, it's now comprehensive. Nice photo galleries, btw. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:44, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- NP, thanks for the compliment. :) –mav
Syntax Changes
You probably didnt mean to do this, but your syntax changes to Ranks and insignia of Starfleet caused several sections to become italics. I changed it back. -Husnock 16:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- Opps. Sorry about that. I was trying to fix some non-ASCI characters. --mav
Antonin Nechodoma
Dear Mav: Please take a look at an article I originated, Antonin Nechodoma (with that name you'd think hes Russian but hes actually Puerto Rican! lol). Anyways, it just so happens that I tried to take the inuse template out of the article and it still appears there (at least on my computer). Could you pleaase see if that can be fixed?
Thank you and God bless you!
Sincerely yours, Antonio 10,000th Wikipedia architect Martin
- No problem about that anymore. Thanks anyways, my friend!
God bless!
Sincerely yours, AntonioMartin|Antonio Coco Lopez Martin
Polish September Campaign
Tnx for the comments. I have added a few inotes, but I am not sure if I formatted them properly. Will you have time to do some work on it? I have added material to this article for almost a year, so I don't remember the exact sources for all the info. I will use inote system in my future article, though - does look useful, when one is adding the information and has the source in front of him. Also, I wonder - does your current objections in FAC are really objections for FAing the article, or more like Comments? They do seem more commentish to me... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- More like luke warm objects since otherwise I really like the article. I'll get to work this weekend. --mav
- Tnx :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:General disclaimer
Hi Maverick, you've made mistake at Wikipedia:General disclaimer on 18th May. Please, remove colon in front of [[:el:......]] --Metju12 11:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Opps, fixed. :) --mav
Military history of Puerto Rico
I don't know how I can ever thank you for working on the Article. I hope that it meets FA standards, becuase it means alot to me. Thank you again and I will always be grateful. Tony the Marine
- You just did. :) And I'm not done yet. Next thing I want to do is create an expanded lead section (introduction). -- mav
Cortonin
I have just made a recommendation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=14076905) to not merge additional cases into the WMC RfA. I believe it is mistaken to say that the problem would not be strongly mitigated by stopping or putting a restraint on WMC (such as, perhaps, editing but not reverting). If you read back in the history of the climate articles for the last 18 months (in particular, before my time), you will see that the tone of non-cooperation has been set on these articles by the consistent behavior of WMC. You can find the flow of all these problems by yourself by checking the history, everything is there. There are others who are involved in the problem, such as vsmith and mkrohn, but the major difference is that when approached, they will usually discuss the matter and are willing to work together toward a NPOV presentation to which few parties could object. WMC is not willing to do so because he believes Wikipedia should endorse the environmental perspective as absolute truth, and he opposes the inclusion of language and papers which even suggests other things could possibly be true. As a result, he functions like a polarizing sabot, crushing the entire process of cooperation. — Cortonin | Talk 20:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
His expertise (a mathematician who works on climate simulations) is flaunted here far beyond his publications. As a physicist myself, his attempts to describe the thermodynamics of greenhouses do not impress me. I would expect a better description out of the undergraduate physics students I've taught. He's promoting basic logical fallacies that we explicitely teach to not be the case in introductory thermodynamics courses, which says to me that his formal expertise does not extend to this. And to make matters worse, his expertise is somehow being used as authenticity to justify his push to endorse the environmental perspective as absolute truth. If you knew me, you'd know that I happen to love the environment and despise pollution. But it doesn't matter what any of us believe about the environment, because NPOV is supposed to be the single central guiding principle here, and we're supposed to all unify in opposition to endorsement of a single perspective as objective truth. Don't let his publications of climate simulations blind you to the perspective endorsement which is occurring, even if you support that perspective yourself. — Cortonin | Talk 20:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
It concerns me greatly that the general flow of the arbitration case is that you see problems with WMC's behavior, but you think he's right, so you don't want to punish him, and you think he's an expert, so you want to encourage him to keep contributing. If you thought WMC was wrong, it seems that you would have banned him a thousand ways from Tuesday. This division between who you think is right and who you think is wrong is a serious error in process, and it is basically reducing the enforcement of NPOV down to only the perspectives that the majority of the arbitrators disagree with. Neutrality on Wikipedia is supposed to be a process, not a perspective. This process of selective enforcement spells the end of NPOV as set down by Wales unless the situation is fixed. — Cortonin | Talk 20:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Appealing to me directly on an arbitration matter is not appropriate. –mav
How about making Wikipedia:Request for shortening?
I found your arguments to limit the article size convincing, though 32k is very short, and I want to make a new Wikipedia:maintenance article. Wikipedia:Request for shortening Care to help? I want to put talk:United States there. I know that I will make myself unpopular with that action but if such an importants article is allowed to be a precedent then what can we tell other enthusiastic editors who make complaints about double standards? Andries 07:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. But I would not use United States as the place to test this (either way, the notice would need to be on the talk page). Getting support for the idea by using it on less controversial articles first is a better idea. Slowly boil the frog instead of shocking him with hot water. BTW, Wikipedia:Summary style now gives a range where articles are likely too long; it starts at 30KB and goes up to 50KB. The larger an article is, the more likely it is too long. Alas some topics do need the whole 50KB. –mav
I need your help
Mav, I really want the Military history of Puerto Rico article make FAC. But, I hate to admit that I am Totally clueless as to what they want when they ask for "reference format" and "inline reference". I thought that by adding the the references in its section was enough. Could you help me? Could you maybe, do one for me so that I can see a clear example?. I feel like a blind man in search of something? Tyhank you, Tony the Marine
Hi Mav, I added some inotes (Inline references) but I need your help in making some of them invisible. Please help me! Tony the Marine
Mav, I'm sorry for bothering you but, I was able to figure it out and I fixed the problem. Would like to look over the "inote" that I've added? Tony the Marine
Did you know?
- Cool - thanks. :) --mav
Typo
Perhaps you meant "Enacted". [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/William_M._Connolley_and_Cortonin/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=14134354) (SEWilco 04:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC))
- Yep. Thanks for fixing that. --mav
Thank You For Your Support
I would like to thank all of the Wikipedians who supported and/or contributed to the article Military history of Puerto Rico. Because of Wikipedians like yourself, this article was able to make featured article status. It was my goal to celebrate my first year in Wikipedia with a featured article and you all made it possible. Thank you once again Tony the Marine
User:Blankfaze
Dear Mav: Hi. My father was nominated for administrationship by another user. I voted to support the nomination. Blankfaze voted against it. Me and Blankface had a major argument about 18 months ago, and he still seems to be resented. It might be that he really opposes, but, based on the fact he once told me that he'd vote against anything I support, I was wondering if we could somehow make his vote not count? He did not put a particular reason to vote against. I think Blankface should vote not based on personal feelings but on his opinion about the person/issue in question.
By the way, I saw your support for him on the voting page, I want to say thanks for supporting him!
Thanks and God bless you! Sincerely yours, Antonio Superman and Wonderwoman Martin
- I don't know of any procedure to invalidate a valid user's vote. But unanimity is not needed to become an admin. I'm sure enough people will vote for your father to reach the needed supermajority. --mav
Help needed in summarizing
Hi Mav. Read that you're good at summarizing. Can you help summarizing Tamil grammar to be put in the Tamil language#Grammar section? Tamil language is a featured article and is long. It would be great if you can reduce the length of the article by summarizing other sections as well. Thanks. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 14:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do this weekend. --mav
Thanks Mav. -- Sundar 04:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for summarizing Tamil Grammar, Mav. -- Sundar 04:05, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Image:Babe Ruth.jpg
| Image deletion warning | The image Image:Babe Ruth.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information. |
Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 00:15, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Fixed. --mav
- Cheers, thanks mav. Only somewhere between 3000 and 20,000 non sourced images to go. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 02:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Selected Anniversaries
Hello, Mav. I've updated all the templates on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May. Just wanna let you know that I'll be taking a long wikivacation. I've already protected tomorrow's template, as well as the image on it. Someone else will have to keep an eye on the templates for the rest of May, and then June. If you have time, please check if everything is okay there. Thanks. Take Care. -- PFHLai 01:37, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Will do, and have fun. :) --mav
- Thank you. Now I'm really going. Happy editing ! :-) -- PFHLai 14:00, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
Mountain infobox changes
Hi. We are currently discussing changes to the layout of the Mountain infobox used by WikiProject Mountains as well as moving back to the use of templates for the infobox. If you are interested, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/General. RedWolf 05:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Invitiation to join the Wikimedia Research Team
Hello Mav!
I'd like to invite you to join the Wikimedia Research Team which I'm building on Meta with support from the Foundation Board of Trustees. Our goal is to work together to systematically analyze the needs of the projects, conduct research and collect empirical data, interview users, build relationships with outside developers, examine project proposals, and make recommendations to the Board for targeted software development. I'm contacting you primarily because of your interest in Wikiversity, a project whose needs I'd like to closely examine over the next few months, and you could be of great help. That doesn't necessarily mean any further time commitment on your part, but it would be nice to see you at meetings, and share ideas on the present and future of the project with you. If you're interested, just add yourself to the list of Current Members, and I will inform you about all future developments.--Eloquence* 16:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Advice on possible arbitration
I'm considering requesting arbitration in the case of Mr Tan (talk • contribs). I've not really been involved in an arbitration (or mediation), and though I've read all the information about the process, I'm not sure that arbitration is in fact the appropriate step. I'd be very grateful if you could have a quick look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan, and the main articles involved (Zanskar and Tsushima Islands), and tell me if there's any other less drastic route that I could go down. Many thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Pleasing the FAC
After examining your comments, I will give you your inline citations on FAC and I will even shorten the table of contents for you. BUT- I don't know how to respond to your saying that the article is now "bloated". There was been virtually no change in the text and all that has happened was the adding of pictures which, of course, increased the file size. You know as well as I do that if we remove large portions of the article, people will then turn around and say it is not detailed enough. Also, where does this come from that the opening header has to be "three paragraphs max". Thats not listed on the definitions of a featured article candidate anywhere. So, anyway, I apprecaite the needs for citations and will do that. it just seems like people (yes, such as yourself) will object to one thing, it will be fixzed, object to another, that will be fixed, and then object to a third simple becuase they dont want to see a Star Trek article as a featured article. I hope you're not going down that road. I urge you to remove the objection that the article is "bloated" and the stuff about the opening. The rest I will give you. -Husnock 14:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Did you even read my first comment on the first FAC? I gave very high praise to the article and am in fact a Star Trek fan. So your insinuation that I will just keep finding things to object to based on me not wanting a Star Trek article featured are outrageous and insulting. Also, the FA criteria is just a list. From that list are other pages that explain the criteria in more detail. The two relevant links in that regard are Wikipedia:lead section and Wikipedia:Summary style. You have some reading to do. --mav
- I know you were not part of that pack that attacked the article last time. It was just very frustrating especially when people starting call the article names. As to your points, I will endeavour to fix everything you say but removing all the pictures from teh article, to restore it to the previous version you mention, will cuase serious problems. One of the old complaints was that the article didnt have enough pictures. The text is the same as before, we just added photos. That shouldnt detract from the FAC, it should strengthen it. Anyway, the table of contents is now of medium content and should be acceptable. I hope that after the inline citations are added this weekend you will withdraw your objection. -Husnock 16:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- With that said, why did you ask that Xiong guy for his comments? He is one of the most rabid haters of that article based on the fact that it is about Star Trek. He has called the article basty names on more than one occasion. Surely you don't support what he has been writing on the FAC page? Anyway, I'll look into making the changes you say. I still feel splitting the article is a very bad idea as it will only give fuel to others to oppose it. As far as your citations, everything in the article is cited. Whenever it says "some publictions",a s you pointed out, tehre is a footnote. if you like, i will remove the term "some publictions" from the entire article. -Husnock 20:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- I now see asking him was a mistake. Sorry about that. I was trying to solicit support for my objection but that backfired. --mav
- With that said, why did you ask that Xiong guy for his comments? He is one of the most rabid haters of that article based on the fact that it is about Star Trek. He has called the article basty names on more than one occasion. Surely you don't support what he has been writing on the FAC page? Anyway, I'll look into making the changes you say. I still feel splitting the article is a very bad idea as it will only give fuel to others to oppose it. As far as your citations, everything in the article is cited. Whenever it says "some publictions",a s you pointed out, tehre is a footnote. if you like, i will remove the term "some publictions" from the entire article. -Husnock 20:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- I know you were not part of that pack that attacked the article last time. It was just very frustrating especially when people starting call the article names. As to your points, I will endeavour to fix everything you say but removing all the pictures from teh article, to restore it to the previous version you mention, will cuase serious problems. One of the old complaints was that the article didnt have enough pictures. The text is the same as before, we just added photos. That shouldnt detract from the FAC, it should strengthen it. Anyway, the table of contents is now of medium content and should be acceptable. I hope that after the inline citations are added this weekend you will withdraw your objection. -Husnock 16:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
In-line Citations Addition
I am pleased to report that in-line citations you requested have been added throughout the Starfleet ranks and insignia article. I formally ask that you now withdraw your objection. The only issue that I feel I cannot fix is your claim that the article is too long. As stated previously, the only additions made was the addition of several pictures in response to user request, the text itself is largely unchanged. Please do not let something like this keep this from becoming a featured article. Hours have gone into this work and I feel it can now stand to the scrutiny of its sources. Thanks for your inputs. -Husnock 05:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- Do you have any further objections to the article? if you can change your vote, that would be it, the article would most likely be promoted to FA. Please log on when you can. Lets work together and make this thing happen. Thanks. -Husnock 08:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration matter concerning Jguk
Just to let you know, I am in the process of gathering extensive evidence for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Evidence but will be out of town all week. Please see my note to slrubenstein here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlrubenstein&diff=0&oldid=14434703) regarding this. Thanks! --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Re: typo
You're welcome! Thanks for letting me know I'm not out of line =) — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Starfleet ranks
I'll be unable to edit for the next 2.5 hours. When I come back, I will comment on the Heinlein FAC, which I am not entirely "satisfied" with. I'll also take some time to read the Starfleet article in detail. Its not a coincidence I haven't commented on it yet; subjectively, I feel it just isn't FA quality (just looking at the layout and these countless low quality live action picture makes it very unappealing to me, and I'm far from being a ST fan), but objecting because it "goes into too much detail" is a path I don't want to follow. User:Phils/sig 17:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Regarding your comments, I assure you it was not intentional - there must have been some edit conflict glitch when I was trying to add my signature to my own comments. Anyway, I've stuck them back in their proper places. --khaosworks 22:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Ah - cool, thanks. :) --mav
Research Team Meeting
Hi Mav,
could you check your preferred times on m:Wikimedia Research Team#Next meeting for the first official IRC meeting of the WRT? Thanks,--Eloquence* 18:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC) PS: I sent you a mail about the cafepress shop, did that ever get through?
Thank You
What a year! My first year in Wiki, a featured article and now administrator. Thank you for your support. Mav, I'll now be counting on you for advice and guidance. Tony the Marine (P.S. It was one year ago, May 31, 2004, that you welcomed me in my User page)
- Congratulations! Boy, where has the time gone? :) --mav
2005 English cricket season (8-30 April)
Whilst I appreciate you dislike transcluded prose, by putting the above-mentioned article on Peer Review I was hoping for positive comments on how to improve and develop the article rather than enter into a discussion on the merits and demerits of transclusion. I am therefore removing your comments in the hope that doing so will help me get more comments so I can better an article I very much care about. If you have positive comments (other than surrounding transclusion) that you wish to make, they would be very much welcomed. Kind regards, jguk 20:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Please leave the peer review of this article alone. If your comments stay, I may as well remove the article as there will be zero practical chance of anything useful coming out of it, which I think would be a shame, jguk 21:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
I am disappointed that you are unwilling to let my article 2005 English cricket season (8-30 April) have a fair run on Peer Review. Since we both know that long comments such as yours put people off making good positive comments, I have removed the article from Peer Review. I am also formally requesting mediation with you with my aim being that the article is allowed a fair run through Peer Review without comments from yourself. I remain disappointed that you take an anti-article rather than a pro-article view on this and hope you will agree to step aside on this one. Kind regards, jguk 21:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- We are no where near Mediation yet. I have the right to comment on any peer review or FAC and will continue to do so. Not at all sure what your pro/anti distinction is about. --mav
We are. I do not believe your comments help me to improve the article and believe their absence may encourage others to offer positive suggestions to improve it. You do have a right to comment on any PR, but in this case I should be grateful if you would allow the Peer Review to go ahead without comments from yourself. I am aware of them already, but would welcome alternative views that do not address the points you make - that is why I'd like them not to be there. Kind regards, jguk 22:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think my points are critical. Thus I will not back down. --mav
Incidentally, on another point, on the FAC of Sydney Riot of 1879 you question including the two letters in full. Your concern, as expressed on WP:WIN and Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources appears to be more that primary sources can be edited at a later date. If it would help (and I admit I am somewhat hesitant at this suggestion under the circumstance), I would have no objection of the source text was on a separate template page that is transcluded into the article, with the source text then being protected. I mention it as it would seem a good way of dealing with source text in general - though, as I say, I realise that under the circumstances mentioning transclusion is perhaps not the best thing for me to do. Kind regards, jguk 22:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Editing is not the only issue - readability is also an issue as well as the fact that we are an encyclopedia. Fundamentally then, full source texts are not allowable unless they are so small that abridging them would be silly. --mav
Technetium
What source did you find Scintium by Hoechst in? I have not been able to find anything useful using Google except for Wikipedia and its mirrors. Thanks. --Eleassar777Missing image
Slovenia_flag_300.png
my talk 09:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
RFC for Arbitration Committee
Hi, Mav, I've left comments on your proposal and a couple others. Sorry, but I think your proposal would turn out unwieldy. Maurreen 06:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Diesel question
Mav, I can't figure out what you're trying to do there. Why did you move the talk page to the disambig page and leave it as a redirect. Is the goal to have the diesel article where it is? If so, move my question to that talk page in place of the redirect. Thanks - Taxman Talk</sup> 16:57, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Doppelgangers
I noticed your comments in the "Pre-empting impersonators" section on Village pump. I wanted you to know I created a template for these accounts: Template:doppelganger. Check it out! Essjay · talk 12:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Some questions for you at RfAr/RFC
Hi Mav, I've asked some more questions of you at that page, would you mind replying when you get the chance?
I do like your proposal, I just see some problems with it and can't provide the answers myself :-) Dan100 14:39, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
FARC proposal
Nichalp has expressed his approval of a compromise solution that I proposed that is similar to a suggestion made by Piotrus. Please comment if you have the chance. Thanks. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
User:NoPuzzleStranger is spreading lies about User:Tobias Conradi - what to do?
User:NoPuzzleStranger is spreading lies about me. several times I asked him to stop (User_talk:NoPuzzleStranger), but he doesn't. Can you tell me what I should do? I posted a WP:RfM but this will take quite long. In the meantime his lies are around.
One version of his constant lies can be seen at ([4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Subnational_entities%2FNaming&diff=15408053&oldid=15402540)). He can not prove his claim, but insists on posting it. I tried to mark it as his personal view, but he puts it as general statement. His last edit summary was marked as minor while it was not, he also frequently leaves out text in the summary or just putting a comment in without saying what he changed. Thanks for a short advice, as I assume you know the WP-policy stuff better than me. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
History of South Africa and Apartheid
Hi -- It's great that you've volunteered to undertake the (probably unpleasant and thankless) task of moving some of the apartheid content out of the history article and into the apartheid article. I'd be happy to pitch in and help if you think it will be helpful. Looking at the apartheid article's talk page, they seem to have been through a really nasty revert war recently, revolving around the role that jews played or didn't play in apartheid.--Bcrowell 23:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Since I haven't heard back from you, I've placed a proposal on Talk:History of South Africa.--Bcrowell 21:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply. More on the HoSA talk page. --mav
Antimony - http://EnvironmentalChemistry.com/
Please remove the link on the antimony page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimony to http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/Sb.html as its owner, Kenneth L. Barbalace blocks and diverts requests from the Opera browser. This renders the link irritating and less than useful. He also bounces mail complaining about it. I would suggest the same for any and all wikipedia links to any Website doing the same.
Thanks, Scott
- It is still a useful link and will stay. --mav
hallo from uwe - about krill
hallo Maveric! may I ask you as biologist to have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Antarctic_krill - you do great work! I like your engagement in Wikiversity (they want to take the article away!?! - take care Uwe Kils Missing image
Heringmini.jpg
Image:heringmini.jpg
11:51, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Please have a look
Hi, Mav, The Race_and_intelligence is naturally controversial, and I don't like it much myself because I don't like the conclusions. But I don't like what the mirror tells me in the morning either. Lately a user who calls himself/herself Zen-master has been making strong attacks that I interpret as ad hominem against Rikurzhen. I've tried to reason with this individual and accept as much of his position as I think has merit, but my attempts have not been successful. After a more responsible contributor, who has a scientific background, joined the discussion I tried to step away from my usual habit of trying to explain things so everybody can understand them (which usually seems not to work for people who won't engage in the reasoning proces). I created a new part of the discussion page and asked for "brass tacks, not lugs". But Zen-master has reappeared and put another diatribe against Rikurshen in that space. Looking at his other contributions he seems not to be a bad person, but he seems (like me) not to like the way the evidence has been tending and so (unlike me) tries to smear the messenger. Please have a look at Talk:Race_and_intelligence#1 for the latest jibes. I'm getting a little impatient, which probably is starting to show. Thanks. P0M 15:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
dup image of Grand Tetons in winter
Image:Grand Teton in Winter-NPS.jpg and Image:Grand Teton.jpg. Oops. Should we do anything about it? --- hike395 15:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Image:Grand Teton in Winter-NPS.jpg looks like a slightly better version. We should use that one and mark the other for deletion on the Commons. --mav