User talk:Maurreen/archive 9

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Maurreen! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

William G. Connolly - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rosen Publishing

A tag has been placed on Rosen Publishing, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PTK Toolkit

You didn't remove the PROD on this article when adding sources, did you mean to do that? Them From Space 02:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did mean to remove the PROD. I don't have strong feelings about the article, but I think it's borderline enough to merit more consideration. Maurreen (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonic Table layout

Why did you redirect the harmonic table entry (about a specific form of isometric keyboard) into the Isomorphic keyboard article? that's like redirecting harpsicords into pianos, because they are both keyboards? Each mapping of layouts has profoundly different ergonomics and playability, which we were planning to expand on. Also, we thought we had well over a week, and if needed would do a backup of the information if the tide turned against keeping the article. Please reverse this.

MusicScienceGuy (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but I also had to reverse the "removal of double-redirects" that the robots did. I ask you, please don't do redirects so lightly again - it is most unfair to the people who spent a fair number of hours (about 100!) on this set of articles, and acts as an immediate, unreviewed delete. MusicScienceGuy (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a SME on alternative Keyboards, I did plan on putting these instruments into not a "Keyboard variations" classification, but a "Tonal Array Keyboard" category. However, now I am out of the time I budgeted :( MusicScienceGuy (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hi Maurreen! I saw your comment appear in my watchlist, and wanted to say hi! I hope that you're keeping well! I'm quite busy in the "real world" right now, but we're still making steady progress on offline releases. Hopefully we can chat sometime. Good to see you around, Walkerma (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciates ur work

Hi, i couldn't put a minimal standard while creating page for Food Balance Sheet. which u compensated. a word of thanks to u. Aravind V R (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Types of technology

I have nominated Category:Types of technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request

Hello Maurreen, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead, use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 00:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Maurreen. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics.
Message added 07:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—SpacemanSpiff 07:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Wow, what an argument.[1]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		The Socratic Barnstar is awarded to those editors who are extremely skilled and eloquent in their arguments. This barnstar is awarded to Maurreen for her incredibly insightful comments. The project needs more editors like youreslf, who make sure we make the right decisions. Okip (formerly Ikip) 10:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for participating in the Request for Comment, at Talk:Outrageous Betrayal. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future of newspapers

Thanks for letting me know about the cats. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure on here finding good folks. You are most welcome. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix that. I was in a hurry. The article has survived largely intact since it ran as a DYK, and in my estimation your edits, while well-meaning, were not an improvement in the text. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Granatt

I added the {{inuse}} tag deliberately to avoid others starting to source the article. So... why did you add a single source? It was a wasted effort as I've sourced it properly now. Fences&Windows 23:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of interest to you

The continued false consensus statements, which ignore the actual majority's view here. I hope you would consider changing your position. Thank you. Okip 14:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel like I felt your position was against mine. I didn't feel that way at all. Neutral views just tend to be ignored in the end. Okip 17:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Moderation all around"...yes.

Sigh. I know what you are subtly getting at. My biggest mistake was bringing up the previous arbitration. Before this, I think my comments were very solidly based on the facts, and had a good foundation. Do you think it would help if you moved that entire section, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#Moving_unfavorable_facts, to the phase I? Thanks.

Okip 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote my oppose section. Okip 17:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest

I hope that you plan on participating in the contest. J04n(talk page) 02:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and wikimedia

Hello Maurreen, can you please put some reference/link in the beginning of this BLP RFC as to the main original problem with the current situation? I read comments about some wikimedia pressure to source all BLP's, but haven't seen the source of this request or anything concise about it. Wikipedia:BLP problem didn't help me. Is there in fact wikimedia pressure? Thanks, Setreset (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To have an effective discussion

Maureen, reading your footnote comment, I realise that I hijacked your talk subject with one that was somewhat different. I've split the posts relating my sub-thread into a separate section. I hope that at least you might get an answer to your Q. Sorry for this. If you feel that I've altered the structure of your thread then please feel free to move the relevant posts back.

Rereading your post, I am not sure what you meant by the comment "What I have in mind is more about issues like how to manage a large volume of input". Perhaps you could explaon on the RFC talk page. -- TerryE (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to drill into details one the RfC page but what we were taught was essentially to use a multi-factor clustering analysis: to try to identify the main modes of view and drive opinion around a compare and contrast of these. Get all of the outlier noise off the table (whilst remembering that the odd outlier might actually in the end prove to be a basis of mutual acceptability). Isolate disruptors from the consensus and above all keep the process going. There are tools and techniques to help, but this is a specialist area -- which is why I suggested seeking advice from the appropriate project. This all being said, it seems to me that you are already doing all this. The trouble is that you've got a pig of a job. You can put lipstick on the pig, but ... -- TerryE (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen, I've added your sandbox to my watch list. I'll make any comments specific to it on its talk page unless you want them here. -- TerryE (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LPTF

Hi there, thanks for contacting me!

Do you have any experience in correlating data? If so, or even if not, you are more than welcome to start helping us work out statistical data on living people in relation to Wikimedia projects. I have a redlink page on strategy, feel free to chip in with anything you can gather and/or get others to examine! I'll come behind and have a look at formatting should it be an issue. The more the merrier, happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Neglected articles

Hi, Beland. I was wondering about reviving this. Is it related to your bot, or did interest just die out? Maurreen (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not being updated because interface changes put the bot offline. I haven't yet had the opportunity to bring the rewrite far enough to recreate that functionality. -- Beland (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Antonio Puig

An article that you have been involved in editing, Antonio Puig, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Puig. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP debate

Hi Maurreen, heck don't give up now! P L E A S E - I'm just as sick as you are of people sidetracking and rushing ahead with plans for stuff for which no concrete conclusions have been reached yet. They are still doing it on the discussion page and putting graphs and stats up that 'look' as if people are helping, but it's just either part of the stalling mechanism, or a way of saying "Look, at me everyone, I'm here, see how clever I am with pics 'n stuff!"
You are one of the top contributors to this debate, and IMHO, one of the most reasonable - If you bail out now, more intelligent and mature editors will too, and either the deletionists, the free-for-allers, or the trigger-happy children will have a field day. There's enough wrong with the Wiki already.--Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maurreen. As you know, I'm a noob to this debate, and so its probably not my place to say this. But please don't give up now. By the way, thanks for the teamwork on Elizabeth Nickson article.--Work permit (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help in keeping the BLP debate on track and at a reasonable temperature. I think editors of all viewpoints appreciate it, even if we didn't want to lengthen the page by saying so. I'm fed up with this huge argument, so I fully understand if you are too, but your valuable contributions will be missed. Thanks again, and please do rejoin us if you can. Certes (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Certes, I appreciate that.

I'm considering a Plan B, if enough level heads want to join me in a fresh start. Maurreen (talk)

Plan B is here. Maurreen (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maurreen/archive 9! If there is any consensus at at all, it is that the entire discussion has become a tangled confusion, and as a result both proponents and opponents of the issues under discussion are abandoning ship. None of us want this. It is still not clear which way consensus will fall and your contributions to the discussion are invaluable. However, In an attempt to keep the policy discussion on an even track, some users have decided to start the ball rolling for clarity by creating a special workshop pages. The first of these is for the technical development of a template at WT:BLP PROD TPL in case policy is decided for it . The taskforce pages are designed keep irrelevant stuff off the policy discussion and talk page, and help a few of us to move this whole debate towards a decision of some kind or another. The pages will be linked in a way that watchers will still find their way to them. This move is not intended to influence any policy whatsoever; It is to keep the discussion pages focussed on the separate issues. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi Maurreen, it more happenstance than system, i was filling in red links at MacArthur Fellows Program, (which to me is a snowball keep) and checking histories, saw a couple that i undid, also found one in MZMcbride's list of Prod's, so i do wonder how many examples are out there. Pohick2 (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're counting, I removed a notability tag on one myself a few days ago. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New York Times writers

Hi Maurreen - The reason I removed it is quite simple: Category:Writers is the head category for a very large number of subcategories, very few of which are direct subcats. So Category:New York Times writers stuck out like a sore thumb. Like all of the many other comparable cats for writers-by-publication, it's already got appropriate parent cats that are a few rungs down the ladder from Category:Writers. Just visualize the clutter if they were all in the head category! That would defeat the whole rationale (and functionality) of our category system. Hope that helps! Cgingold (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for your assistance in moving the seaworld discussion along. SpikeJones (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you've taken two weeks and read through the entire thread (and associated previous topics), hopefully you've noticed I've tried to be civil, fair, and focused with my discussion points. SpikeJones (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar 2

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For your work to keep the BLP discussion on track and to prevent compromise from being derailed by extremists. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here the diplomacy standards are pretty low, I guess! I have gotten so frustrated lately with this whole process. So many people here are ridiculously obstinate (on both sides). (I'm sure I don't have to name names.) It's good to have at least a handful of people working towards finding common ground! Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take a rather different view of this than Calliopejen1, but I want to add my appreciation for your continued work and patience with this, and urge that you maintain an even-handed approach, whether or not it favors my own position. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here here, you might well snatch a solution out of the slough of the Sargasso Sea. Pohick2 (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And make that a fourth voice clamoring in agreement. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. I admire your patience; I gave up on the whole thing a while ago. I've got a few I need to source, but never can seem to get around to them...other than that I've said my piece. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that you deserved a barnstar for your work to find several possible routes through this mess. As you'ev just got one, there's no point in givign you another. However, if you ever want to stand for arbcom, I would support you as someone who is clear-headed and understands policy and the need to enforce it impartially a lot better than some current arbs I could name.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree abotu certain comments being dispiriting but most still stand against abuse of sysop powers. Actually I had assumed that you were an admin, but you don't seem to be one. I don't see a problem with a long-standing editor bypassing admin to go for arbcom, but I can imagine some disliking it. History with 3O, and mediation ought to be just as good as sysop experience.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP compromise

I stand by this[2]. It is, however, part of a whole and predicated on an effective stickyprod process coming into effect without delay.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Diplomacy

as a follow-on proposal of Détente -- i made the suggestion elsewhere:

hey deletionists, let's work on the obvious cruft and stop arguing about anything near the line, it's more fun;
hey inclusionists, let's work on the snowball keeps and not waste time arguing about anything near the line, it's more fun
there would have to be an agnostic group in the middle moving the line.

-- boy would quality and productivity increase. is this something worthy of a proposal, essay? would you consider proposing, given your diplomatic skills? i would be willing to talk to, coach inclusionists, could we find an exclusionist coach? in the aftermath of the BLP frustration, maybe we could have some temporary common sense. Pohick2 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP template workshop

Maurreen, I think some users may be interrupting the workflow by discussing policy (albeit in GF), particularly that of the technically unenforceable WP:BEFORE, on the workshop page. I have suggested we create a new sub-page for this kind of discussion. What do you think? --Kudpung (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that means me**. I consider that i was just following up on what factors are needed in the compromise. You proposed taking it out, I proposed putting it in. I am not, to be frank, particularly concerned avoid the workflow, but on getting the right compromise. another possible compromise which I mentioned elsewhere on the page is of not having punitive sanctions for removing tags, but approach the problem of what to do in such a case indirectly. . If the feeling is that BEFORE is impossible to add now, would regard that as in some way the equivalent in achieving balance. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_ **considering he just left me a note about it. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't jump to conclusions DGG :) - it should have appeared clear by now that your comments are among the most valued. However, One of the problems on the workshop page, is that some people are still attempting to turn it into a discussion on poiicy, while others appear to be simply peppering it with eloquent but cynical remarks in order to have something to say. Other users will always rise to such challenges, and thus prolong the agony - I know, I even do it myself.

Perhaps we can stimulate some support to keep the page on track, otherwise there is a risk that valued contributors will be bailing out again. I've run out of ideas, and I might be the next one to run away, not that it wopuld make much difference if I did ;) --Kudpung (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rehi

Nice to see you back talking about style guidelines Maurreen, I always enjoyed reading your work in the MOS talk archives. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meta RfC

I love the idea of an RfC on RfCs, it's been something that has bugged me for a while. I have done some bold changes to the page, take a look at make sure you are OK with what I did. Gigs (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:N&O

Copy editing

Hi Maurreen. I'm responding to your edit on Copy editing.
The first sentence you added was redundant with "(but not necessarily content)", so I consolidated them. Also, "narrower scope" is vague, and the scope is already described in the first sentence. The second sentence you added is covered by the sentence about proofreading, but I like "the editorial cycle" more than "final publication", because it's more general. Your "authority" sentence fits in with the "sub" terminology in the second paragraph, so I moved it there. Please let me know if there's anything else you think should be changed. —Codrdan (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

> I tweaked your tweaks

Great, that looks fine. —Codrdan (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just clicked on your user page

from somewhere else and saw Albuquerque. I'm headed through the Big I myself, early (earlyish) tomorrow. I'll wave as I pass by. Carptrash (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP template workshop - page split

HI Maurreen. I've now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that we can get on with the template development unhindered. Having done this, you might now wish to further collapse, or even uncollapse some of your excellent housekeeping actions. i'll leave it to you. Also, although I've been bold with the moves, I've actually been quite conservative, so if you see anything else that can be moved to the policy page, please don't hesitate to go ahead.--Kudpung (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Maurreen. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 07:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Kudpung (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maurreen. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Sticky_Prod_workshop.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem, I can always write one up myself :). I'll have to change it a little bit to say that it's from a bot, but otherwise looks okay. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump

Hi Maurreen, I don't want you think I am stalking you - It's genuine conincidence :) --Kudpung (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with sticky prods

Thanks for the reply, Maurreen. The thing is that it raises all kinds of problems. Per V anything that's challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source. So imagine we have an unsourced BLP, a sticky PROD is added, someone adds just one source, and that allows him to remove the tag. That could still leave the article non-policy-compliant and even libellous regarding its remaining unsourced material, yet the tag has been removed properly. That raises legal issues, because it's no longer a question of "sorry, we didn't notice that libellous article," but "well, we did see it, but someone added a source for another point and that meant the article couldn't be deleted." :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been heavily involved in BLP issues since 2005 and helped to write the policy. [3] The reason I didn't take part in the RfCs is that I feared nothing would come of them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 11:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's happened, Maurreen. You left in 2006 and returned in 2010 and since then have seemed to be quite unfriendly. I can't have done anything to offend you in that period because we had no contact, but if I've done something inadvertently, I do apologize. If it's just a general malaise not directed at me specifically, I completely understand because WP can be very frustrating. I hope you won't let it get to you too much. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 11:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I remembered you! We earned our spurs together on the MoS, battling against special mention of Maltese English among other things. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly, just a tone, and I could be imagining it. No worries anyway. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Maurreen. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 15:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Kudpung (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help advertise this new bot?

There is a new bot which I requested and Tim created:

Possibly around 20% of articles tagged as unreferenced BLPs have references This bot lists 300 articles, tagged as an unreferenced BLP, which have 5 or more references.

The bot information is here: [4]

I am asking two other editors to advertise this, and will post it on active BLP policy pages and projects. Please help get the word out for this new tool.

Thanks. Okip 02:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot doesn't seem to be working. --Kudpung (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is :) Tim1357 (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:BLP help

Hello, Maurreen. You have new messages at Black Falcon's talk page.
Message added 20:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Conspiracy Journalsim

May I suggest you reflect on the animus you seem to bear towards this article? The AfD nomination has generated little to no interest. I opened the article to the journalism portal and have sought out more contributions to flesh out this topic. It appears to be real, relevant and worthy of inclusion. I suggest we let it stay and see what transpires. Jettparmer (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Andersen

Hello, I noticed you removed the category of 'American journalists' from the Andersen entry. Andersen was a longtime editor and writer for TIME, before he left to found SPY magazine with fellow Time-Inc.'er Graydon Carter. I think he definitely qualifies as an American journalist. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but he was a journalist for a long time before he was a columnist, I can assure you. MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I feel that he should be included under both columnist and journalist. I think many of our old TIME comrades would remember him best as a journalist, which he was there before he ever ventured into columnist territory, although he's certainly gifted enough to be that. Thanks for asking and have a good day. MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thanks the query. We should probably list him as 'American magazine staff writers,' as that's basically what he was at TIME. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Zindler

Hi there, I was just perusing his article when I noticed in the history that you removed some categories and was curious as to why the removal on the ones in which he seemed to belong to. Cheers! --Hourick (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with most of them and the categories can maddening when finding the right one, which is why I didn't simply do a revert, Although, I think that a couple of them should be allowed, particularly the USMC (WWII vet, will have to read the bio or ask if he saw action or where he was stationed) and Television Personalities. Additionally, I think that if there was a sub-category for "Consumer advocate" or along those lines. He is still missed and lord knows he was a character. --Hourick (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP sticky prod

Hi Maurreen, Please see: Wikipedia talk:Sticky prod policy#Length of time before deletion
After no movement on this thread for nearly five days we sudxdenly get four postings within one minute (somtimes less) of each other, all expressing exactly the same opinion. Seems rather odd to me. What do you make of it?--Kudpung (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Conurbations

FYI: I don't know if you noticed but I created a page under WikiProject cities for the conurbation proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Conurbation guidelines. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I saw your comments at WT:RFA. You deserve a barnstar. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		To Maurreen, for dedication to Wikipedia's article content. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:New York state journalists

Category edits

Hi Maurreen

I have just come across a long series of rather strange category edits by you.

You blanked and depopulated Category:New York journalists and moved the articles to Category:New York state journalists which you had just created. Please don't do that; if you think a category is incorrectly named, please nominate it at WP:CFD for renaming, but don't just move it without seeking consensus.
You have almost completely depopulated Category:Journalists by publication in the United States, in these edits. Why?
You have removed dozens of journalists from Category:American journalists, leaving many of them in no journalist category: e.g. Edwin Black, George T. Bye, James Barron (journalist), Christopher Caldwell ... and you also removed Caldwell from all the by-publication categories he was in.

Please stop this, and revert those edits. There are hundreds of these category removals in your recent edit history, and while some of the edits place people in more specific categories, many of them just take the articles out of any journalism category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note about the CFD discussion for Category:New York state journalists.

I acknowledge making some mistakes. I think I thought that I had created Category:New York journalists and that the rules allowed taking things out of a category if I had been the only one to add them to that category. For the sake of efficiency, I'd like to wait to see how the CFD discussion turns out.

I think I have restored everything to Category:Journalists by publication in the United States, although many are now in subcats. If I missed any, let me know.

I think there's room for reasonable disagreement about individual journalists. A number of them I took out of Category:American journalists in they were in Category:American authors, including those that I placed in Category:American authors. My view is that writers of books are generally more likely to be known for their books than for anything else they've written.

Edwin Black -- Ninety-nine percent of the article is about his books. I did overlook adding him to Category:American authors, which I have just corrected.

George T. Bye -- I removed Category:American newspaper reporters and correspondents because the lead doesn't mention that he was a journalist. I think that's a reasonable interpretation of "They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject," from WP:CAT. But because the article does include a section mostly about his journalism work, and in the interest of harmony, I have restored the article to Category:American newspaper reporters and correspondents.

James Barron (journalist) is still under Category:New York Times writers and Category:American journalist, 1950s birth stubs, both of which fall under Category:American journalists.

Christopher Caldwell is still under Category:Weekly Standard people and Category:American journalist, 1960s birth stubs, both of which fall under Category:American journalists. Maurreen (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reason there are hundreds of removals is because Category:American journalists had more than 3,000 articles directly in the cat. Maurreen (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maureeen, AFAICS you removed hundreds of articles from any journalist category, and so far as I can see you have restored about five of them. Please fix all the rest, and do not leave it to others to clean up after you.

On the CFD, you should not have depopulated the category, and should now repopulate it. If the consensus at CFd is to delete or merge the category, it will be emptied again, but don't depopulate a valid category without a CFD consensus.

On George T. Bye, you seem to be approaching the question as if he had be either an author or a journalist; he can and should be in both categories, because the section George_T._Bye#Early_Life_and_Career makes it clear that he had a notable career as a journalist. I'm glad that you have restored the category, but the fact that you did only "in the interest of harmony" suggests that you still don't see the problem.

Edwin Black is not just a notable author, he is also a notable journalist and editor. Ninety-nine percent of the article is about his books, but it his journalism is noted in the lead and is quite clear that he has also had a significant career in journalism which the article does not cover in sufficient detail. Just read the last section

You have not explained why you removed Christopher Caldwell from Category:Washington Post people, Category:Wall Street Journal people, Category:New York Times people, & Category:New York Press people

I'm horrified that you have removed people from Category:American journalists just because there were 3,000 articles in the root category. Disperse them to sub-categories as appropriate, but wholescale removal of journalists from journalism categories is not acceptable.

Please start fixing this mess, or I will start mass-reverting your edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS One of the things you have been doing is removing writers from Category:American journalists because it is overpopulated, and then adding them to Category:American authors. You appear not to have noticed that Category:American authors is a redirect to Category:American writers ... so what you have been doing is removing articles from a specific category and putting them in a more general one which is itself in need of diffusion. This is really unhelpful; please stop doing that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More bad edits

I started doing a more detailed check of your edits, and here are more bad ones:

Those are off just one page of your contribs list: 9 miscategorisations out of 50 edits. That's far too high an error rate: please just stop recategorising articles. I'm sure that you are acting with good intentions, but the effects are destructive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And more problems

Maureen, I'm sorry to say that the more of you edits I look at, the more problems I find.

In this edit, you made Category:American copy editors a sub-category of Category:American newspaper editors. This is wrong: copy editing is a very different issue to being editor of a newspaper (that job is best-described on wikiedia by the article Editor in chief).
In this edit, you removed John Clum from Category:American journalists without placing him in any other journalism related category. You was already in Category:American publishers (people), but that category is not part of the Category:Newspapers, so anyone looking through newspaper or journalism categories would not have found him. I have now placed him in Category:American newspaper publishers (people), where he does come under Category:Newspapers.
In this edit, you removed Jill Carroll from Category:Wall Street Journal people, even though she was a reporter with that paper for 3 years.
In this edit, you removed Teresa Carpenter from Category:American journalists. Why? She won the Pulitzer prize for her writing for the Village Voice, and although she is in Category:Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing winners, that is not a sub-category of Category:American journalists (and nor is a prize category the place anyone would expect to have to look to find a journalist).
in this edit, you removed Binyamin Appelbaum from Category:American journalists, but the only journalism category he is in Category:Former Daily Pennsylvanian staff. That's a student newspaper, so you left him in no category relating to his career in journalism in the two decades or more since he left university (he was writing for the Washington Post in 1991 [5])

The last 4 edits are all from a list of your contributions over a period of 20 minutes from 07:47 to 08:49 this morning: that's 4 bad recategorisations out of 30 edits. This is far to high an error rate. Please please please, stop recategorising articles, and start discussing this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

To User:SlimVirgin -- I was mistaken when I said you did not leave an edit summary about the redirect. I'm sorry that I said you hadn't. Maurreen (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To User:BrownHairedGirl

Your outraged tone is not warranted, appropriate or productive. Please treat me as you would like to be treated. If you do not, I plan to archive your notes and not listen to you. Maurreen (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen

I spotted a problem, and tried to draw it to your attention, but you ignored most of what I had written.

So I spent some time doing a wider analysis of the problem, and posted a list of diffs showing some of the problems. I tried to keep the tone as friendly as possible, but the substance of it is that your widespread recategorisation of articles contains a significant proportion of problematic edits.

I have assumed throughout that your long series of errors are being made are acting in good faith, and I ask you to assume that my concerns are being raised in good faith. Please address those problems rather than just complaining about the tone, and please STOP recategorising articles until you have discussed these issues. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your moderation.

What would be more productive than either of us complaining would be for you to diffuse, or help diffuse Category:American journalists. I am willing to compromise with you. Then we could both get what we want.

I did not ignore most of what you had written in your initial note. I addressed most of that.

I don't doubt your good faith. But I don't need to respond to unwarranted unpleasantness.

And I will not stop my category work.

Even if, as you suggest above, 20 percent of my edits were bad: 1) That's still a net gain with a ratio of 4 to 1. 2) In most schools, that's a B, and more than acceptable. 3) If I were to dig through edit history for many people, if not most, I could also find a good number of problems. 4) Perfection is not required.

Maurreen (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen, those calculations are based on a flawed assumption of a mathematical equivalence.

Diffusing a large category can be useful, but an article placed in an undiffused category is much less of a problem than an article removed from that section of the category tree, because articles are removed from a category tree, it requires a lot of work to find them and reinstate them. So I don't see a net gain, just net damage.

WP:BOLD says "Be bold ...but please be careful", and warns that "it is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly", and "there are some significant changes that can be long-lasting and that are harder to fix if the need arises". In WP:BOLD#Category_namespace it particularly warns that "Creating new categories or reorganizing the category structure may come to affect many pages". That's what's happening here. You are making big changes to categories which affect hundreds of articles, causing problems which will be hard to fix ... and you repeatedly ignore requests to discuss concerns with those changes.

A high proportion of the categories you have created recently are currently being considered at CFD, with no support so far for retaining any of them in the form you created them. That should be warning that there is no consensus for what you are doing, and a need to discuss your approach ... but instead you just continue creating categories, re-parenting existing categories, and re-categorising articles without fixing anything when concerns are raised.

I have taken the time to identify and spell out a whole set of problems, with a list of bad edits at User_talk:Maurreen#More_bad_edits and detailed explanations of the errors in another list at User_talk:Maurreen#And_more_problems. You have not replied to any of the points raised in those lists, let alone tried to fix them, so at the point the only way of stopping the damage is to seek some restriction on your editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remain willing to compromise. That offer addresses any past, current or future concerns you have about my category work. If you decide you'd like to discuss a compromise, please let me know. Maurreen (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen, I have listed a lot of specific problems, and asked you to stop and discuss them. That's how the bold revert discuss cycle works.

So the first thing is please stop these recategorisations until you have resolved the concerns. Stop recategorising individuals articles, stop creating new categories ... and try to address some the points outline above.

The solution may be 2 compromise, but it may laos be one of the extremes. Simply splitting the difference does not produce good results. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to undo or redo what I do. That's also how the bold revert discuss cycle works. Maurreen (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen, I have been trying to discuss part for some time without success: you simply don't respond.

What you seem to be saying is that you will carry on creating piles of badly-parented and badly-named categories, sometimes duplicated or even triplicated, and you will recategorise hundreds of articles with dozens of problems ... and other editors will just have to run around tidying up after you. That's not the way that consensus works: when there's a pattern of problems, please discuss and try to resolve the approach which is causing them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I have said is that I will not stop my category work. I have also said that I'm willing to compromise. Maurreen (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the way things are supposed to work is to focus on the content, and not the editor, as you continue to do in your CFD nominations. That does not help resolve anything. The CFDs should stand or fall on their own merits or not. Maurreen (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen, can you try to be specific. What exactly are you proposing by way of compromise?

I'm not really interested in whether something is a compromise, or an idea from one party or another: I'm interested ensuring that the encyclopedia is improved rather than damaged.

I am trying hard to remain polite here, but what I see is hundreds of miscategorisations and dozens of misconceived new cateories (along with a few salvageable ones) ... and having putting a lot of time and effrt into setting out all the problems I find it very odd that you have still addressed none of the issues I have raised. So what do you propose? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a compromise proposal, I would be willing not to make new categories for a month, or some other amount of time, if you would be willing to help me diffuse Category:American journalists at y rate, such as 10 day, and refrain from biasing any further CFD nominations with remarks about the category creator.

I am open to counter-proposals. Maurreen (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:American journalists by birth year

Category:American journalists by birth year and its sub-categories, which you created, have been nominated for merging. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this and the other notices. Maurreen (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:American editors of California newspapers

CfD nomination of Category:American editors of Northeast newspapers

CfD nomination of Category:American journalists by heritage

Barnstar

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your help with the unsourced BLPs, and BLPs in general. Thanks! Gigs (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:American online journalists

reliable vs unsourced

Fair enough, but it actually opens a can of worms. What is "reliable" is going to be subjective. All I was indicating was that a link to the subject's homepage is pretty uncontroversially not enough. I suspect you'll get objections adding a "blp prod" to a sourced article on the grounds of if being not reliably sourced, whereas I suspect most people would agree that a link to a website maintained by the subject isn't really a source at all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natureinart (talk · contribs)

The name is obviously promotional, representing an organization (the museum) and is an single-purpose account. Such accounts are subject to immediate and permanent blocking (see WP:FAQ/Business). And it's strange, seeing as someone else with a random, acceptable name had already worked on the article so much. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 11:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Stop it' Thread

Talk pages have a purpose, in that case to discuss the policy to adopt for BLP prod; user issues should not be taken up there, they are to be discussed on user talk pages or at appropriate noticeboards. This is this kind of threads and dramatization in the middle of discussion which jeopardise consensus building so often on Wikipedia. How do you want new people to contribute or people to keep contributing to the discussion if they see this kind of threads and dramatization ? Please kindly remove it, and take it to SV's talk page if you want. Cenarium (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Maurreen. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 09:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

FYI: See a recent exchange. Actually SV is suggesting taking personal issues to the project and/or policy discussion pages! I certainly object to the radical revert of your policy contrib. Kudpung (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. I've done what I could in the light of SV's attacks. I've stuck my neck out but I've really got nothing to lose, but if she perists I think she would risk getting herself desysoped.--Kudpung (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Texas journalists by newspaper

Thanks for the notice. Maurreen (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Washington, D.C., journalists by newspaper

Thanks for the notice. Maurreen (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Nonfiction

I have nominated Category:Nonfiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Greg Bard 21:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mlpearc talk

Hi Maurreen, We had an edit conflict, you left me a message at my talk while I was working on my auto- (*&$#%%#^) Archive (Sorry for the language.). Anyway could you please re-post the message. I know I can find it in History, but I find it's a good habit to document for the future, Thanks (Do you know any good plumbers... I mean Archivist ?) Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the "source" issue was answered by SV. The Huggle thing is that I use it sometimes and if a page that Huggle brings up because it thinks it's vandal or nonsence and I choose to say "yes revert it", if the editor that wrote the "vandal" is the author, Huggle will ask if I want to tag it for deletion also. So along those lines it would be another good tool to find pages that need to be tagged. Thanks for your message and time. Happy editing and see ya around ! ! Mlpearc MESSAGE 05:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral canvassing"

Please stop. There is no agreement that the "neutral" message you are posting on peoples' Talk: pages is, in fact, neutral. Again, please stop doing this now. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen, I do this kind of canvassing all the time. You do not need anyone's persmission to do it, and you are not suggesting they should vote either way. I'll even help you if your like.--Kudpung (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Maurreen. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 23:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Kudpung (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Maurreen. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 09:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

no rhetoric Kudpung (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Did you see that edit war over putting my post where SlimVirgin wanted it? That took a heck of a lot of nerve. I found it very disruptive. -- Rico 04:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV saw your complaint,[6] and five hours later began edit waring with me, trying to put my post somewhere I hadn't put it.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

Judging by SV's response to the WQA, and the way SV ignored my complaints, I would say that "at least two editors must have contacted the user on the user's talk page, or the talk page(s) involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem."

I deleted the subheader that separated my post from the post I was replying to. I thought it was more SV mischief. -- Rico 19:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be coming to the conclusion that SV's edits and comments to all and any of the pages related to the BLP issue, are often unconstructive, railroading, filibustering, and generally an attempt to get in on the act at the last minute and take the credit. She clearly intones that she is the expert on policy. I seem to have noticed also that she changes her opinions, often radically, to match those of others who may have opposed her. Moreover, she is curt and sometimes even rude. Not altogether the kind of behaviour that I would expect from a sysop. I do hope I am wrong in all this - it's probably just an impression I have.--Kudpung (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 31, 2010, SV moves InconX comment away from what it had been replying to.[14]

April 3, 2010, InconX writes, "I can understand you wishing to edit an article, but I am baffled as to why you continuously remove my comments from the talk page rather than engaging with them. Either this is some arcane Wikipedia pedantry or you simply wish your version of events to prevail unchallenged and unchallengeable."[15]

Per WP:Refactor, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Refactoring includes, "Relocation of material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriate."

Since the editor objected to the refactoring, SV should have reverted the change -- or at least offered to. SV simply states that the change had been made, while moving the objection InconX made on SV's talk page! -- Rico 20:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen complained on SV's talk page, "You cast unfounded suspicion on me, and you dismiss my requests for explanation or a cooperative approach.

"You continue to criticize, in general, those who disagree with you, and in particular, me. I ask you to stop it.

"An editor with your experience should be more than familiar with the principle of No personal attacks, which includes 'Comment on content, not on the contributor.' "

5 1/2 hours after SV presumably read it, because SV moved it, SV ascribed ulterior motives to me [16] -- that were not my motives.[]

I don't see SV getting the point.

SV has consistently ducked, rather than stopping violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Rico 20:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with an editor, it is best to take it to their talk page, or use the dispute resolution process. Discussing them on another page, without notifying them, is usually unhelpful.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV has been unresponsive when users have taken these issues to her talk page and dispute resolution, so that has been unhelpful. -- Rico 17:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Biskupic

I noticed you recently removed Category:Washington Post people from Joan Biskupic. Since she worked there from 1989 to 1992, I wonder why you removed it. I also noticed that you have since created Category:Washington Post journalists, which would now be the more appropriate category. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Maurreen, my preference is that we keep our interaction to a minimum. I'm only editing the sticky prod because I was worried about your edits to BLP. I do find it odd that you'd ask me not to post comments about you to you, when you're elsewhere trying to stir up trouble against me with others, e.g. here.

You earlier requested diffs when I said that, before you left in 2006, I used to defend you against people criticizing you. I used to do it a lot, and it's quite sad that you've forgotten, but here's one diff. I supported you because I felt bad that you'd been criticized for deliberately increasing the heat in situations, focusing on minor issues, assuming bad faith, proposing to delete comments you didn't like from a talk page, and for basically inventing your own policies. The only difference is that now you're doing it to me, so I have a lesson to learn about one's own ox being gored.

I'd prefer if we could just agree to disagree about each other. Once the sticky prod policy settles down, I'll be out of your hair. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Maurreen as "trying to stir up trouble." I see her as trying to get you to follow Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and major (consensus-driven) essays -- rather than moving everybody's talk page posts all over the place, as if they were yours. It's frustrating -- maddening for some -- and you've been told about it many times. I know of four people that complained to you about it in three days recently! That's important for the community to know -- and if you can't take the heat, you could stop doing it.

By insisting on flaunting the rules, and riding roughshod over other editors' rights, you bring it on yourself -- yet rather than recognizing your own role in this, you blame Maurreen?

You put my post where I hadn't put it three times in half an hour![17][18][19] You have gotten other editors blocked for edit warring at ANI. Do the rules apply to them, but not to you?

Is there some reason why you can't leave other people's posts alone (like the vast majority of Wikipedians)? -- Rico 18:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She appears now to be telling people to stop posting on her talk page, which is probably not conducive to communicating with her. I think when the PLB issues are over, and SV is out of our hair, maybe an inquiry about her behaviour as a sysop maybe appropriate. But I would hate to be so drastic.--Kudpung (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a shame and a big disapointment to happen across this discussion about this type of issues and behavior with these types of names/editors involved. If I am out of line with this comment because I hav'nt seen the whole picture, please accept my apologies, but if the surface is what it is then "WOW" Mlpearc MESSAGE 00:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mlpearc, thanks for your note, and I'm sorry if I have disappointed you.

If you'd like a little context, SV refers above to me requesting diffs.

I had requested diffs four days before, when she said, "I think you forget that I was one of the few people—in fact at one point, I was the only person—who used to support you when you got into trouble for precisely this kind of behaviour before your four-year break." (Emphasis added.)

But the only diff she gives is for my RFA, with a 5/5/3 result, when I'd had about three months of experience. Maurreen (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I'm the new kid in the block, I don't think or feel any less of anybody (as if mattered if I did). I think I was in a weird mood yesterday when I wrote this, but I know we all try so hard to be Honorable and Fair, we as editors and people try to keep our integrity to the highest level as the pages we write, edit and protect. This just caught me off guard. I say this with all due respect. I still don't know why I always tend to be so "Heavy" lol. have a great day to all Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, not to worry. You did nothing "heavy" or wrong at all. I'm sorry if I came off the wrong way. The related stuff (not you at all) caught me off guard as well. Have a good day; have a great life! Maurreen (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct "No Worries" and you have a great day to my friend Mlpearc MESSAGE 18:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lewis

Hello again. I noticed you removed the category American Journalists from Anthony Lewis's entry. Lewis was a longtime reporter for The New York Times after serving as managing editor for The Harvard Crimson [20]. Later Lewis was a legal columnist for The Times, but he should be listed under the categories as both journalist and columnist. They are not mutually exclusive. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Maurreen. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 08:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

FYI Kudpung (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much for the barnstar. It's always nice to be appreciated. I can't help thinking that you deserve one too... Alzarian16 (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Workshop against out-of-process deletion

blanked page

Hi Maurreen, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Wikipedia:Workshop against out-of-process deletion. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 00:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I am writing this message to two editors, I will post it at both editors talk page. I know the subject matter is or may not be your interest but it doesn't have to be for you to help me. Both of you I trust and you do have the experience to help me out. First ( This is my first proposal ), first question Here is the proposal, is the format OK or Correct. Second how would I notify / advertise to the interested community ? If it's not to much could you reply on my talk. Thank you Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Maurreen, and now that it's "out in public" could I get a an official o'key doe key. Thanks. Oh I almost for got how do I let people know that this discussion is going on ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maurreen I think I figured it out. Here

Politics and the English Language

We have our differences on how to get to the point, as free-thinking individuals will, but I'm lovin' how you're gettin' Orwell on this shit: collateral damage and ethnic cleansing are unacceptable...indeed. Power on. (And you make me think how I'm missing me some Albuquerque tacos.) Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you, but I wonder. Would we make a greater impact applying ourselves to doublespeak or to bullshit?—DCGeist (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe euphemism. My favorite new tool on Wikipedia is the article traffic statistics thingy. So far this month, doublespeak has gotten 6,341 hits. Bullshit has gotten 14,062 hits. Euphemism? 41,624 hits. Maybe that's where to focus.—DCGeist (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Time Re-Write

Current working re-write and proposed section "to be" inserted can be seen Here Mlpearc MESSAGE 21:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support

I appreciate your support for the work we have been doing at WP:Research and WP:SRAG. It's easy to forget that your work is appreciated in the face of relentless (and repetitive) criticism. Thanks for the reminder. --EpochFail^(talk|work) 16:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Time

Sorry, I should of let you know, I thought it was ready and Hey my Friend after most of this talk I moved it. Hope you agree, but I want to leave the discussion open for awhile, just so anybody can still vioce their opinon, let me know what you think Mlpearc MESSAGE 23:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice Maurreen, I like how it looks and flows a lot better. If you don't mind if you could keep it on your watchlist for awhile I'd really like to keep it just the way it is. Thank you for all your input and collaboration, it was an honor. I hope something comes up in the future so we can work together again. If I can ever do anything you have my number, Thanx Mlpearc MESSAGE 01:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream media

Hi there, and thanks for your message on my talk page. I added my comments on this article to its talk page. Robofish (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signing

Sorry about not signing that post. I'm a pretty new editor, and it seems that half the time I space. For my last comment (on the Gerald Posner talk page), I remembered moments after hitting save. I'll try to remember to do it consistently.

Argg!I just did it again!!!! (forgot to sign).Eurytemora (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posner

Hi Maureen,

You asked me to clarify. I'd be happy to, but I'm not an experienced editor. Exactly how would you suggest? I want to maintain all the info (including CheeseStakeholder's comment).Eurytemora (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Chronicle

Thanks for the encouraging words about the Cambridge Chronicle... It would be great if you could give me some feedback in terms of what is missing to make this a more complete article, and also help with bringing it all into the proper format. I am happy to execute edits per your direction, just let me know what needs to be done.

I am also coming back from Wiki-Retirement, I was active in the German Wikipedia until four years ago. So by now, I am not very attuned to the current review processes. What do I have to do to get my article rated in terms of quality and importance?

-- Jordan1976 (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback / help. I will see where I find the missing information... -- Jordan1976 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I updated the information with what I could retrieve. Thanks again! -- Jordan1976 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! -- Jordan1976 (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

SlimVirgin has brought up an event that you have been involved with, here. -- Rico 00:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

obscene post

Hi Maurreen: thanks for reverting it. Since two people are named, do you think an admin might be called in to do a more drastic removal of the post? I'm not sure what the protocol is. Tony (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I've asked Ryan Postlethwaite's advice. Tony (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Maurreen. You have new messages at User talk:Kudpung/IPA RfC proposal (draft).
Message added 16:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Need some more help please. Kudpung (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. military women

I see that you created Category:U.S. military women, Category:U.S. Air Force women, Category:U.S. Army women, Category:U.S. Coast Guard women, Category:U.S. National Guard women and Category:U.S. Navy women. There were already categories named: Category:Women in the United States military, Category:Women in the United States Air Force, Category:Women in the United States Army, Category:Women in the United States Coast Guard, Category:Women in the United States Marine Corps and Category:Women in the United States Navy. I moved all of the articles from your categories to the existing categories. There isn't a category for Women in the National Guard, but the NG can be considered a subset of either the Army or Air Force. Since both women you had in the NG category (Rosetta Burke and Margarethe Cammermeyer) were members of the Army NG, I moved them to Category:Women in the United States Army. I don't think we need a separate category for the NG, but you may disagree. I have redirected all of the categories to the previously existing categories. --rogerd (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I belive the National Guard is part of the Navy and USMC Mlpearc MESSAGE 21:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, yes.

You can always count on me to defend the initial but. As I recall, we had a however construction there that you improved on. I see no reason to retreat!—DCGeist (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlink to Nupedia broken or obsolete?

I noticed you restored the sentence in WP:NPOV about it having originated in Nupedia via Larry Sanger. I just wanted to call to your attention that this link in the "History of NPOV" is either broken or obsolete. Offhand, I'd thought it was the latter. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Maurreen. You have new messages at Kwamikagami's talk page.
Message added 15:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

FYI Kudpung (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Entertainment Monthly

Hi Maurreen. Would you mind taking a moment to look at this article that was userfied rather than being deleted last week? The other editors were kind enough to allow me time to work on it, just not on the "Mainpage." I hit the jackpot two days ago and discovered an entire horde of newspapers from that era, including the ones I have just added to the article. It now has 16 references, a handful of external links and all facts have been checked against the hard copies in my possession.

User:Nineteen Nightmares/Valley Entertainment Monthly

Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

signpost submission

I do hope you are going ahead and making a submission to signpost. Note the new report on BLPs by Wikiproject announced at wt:URBLP should provide some more factual information to report, e.g. a table of numbers of the top wikiprojects and fact that 15 or more Wikiprojects have had all their unreferenced BLPs eliminated (all those are ones that had just 1 or a few, you can see them by sorting the table by its last column).

You can choose to mention it or not, but I do think that mentioning the IMDB zapping is relevant. It is possibly controversial; it represents IMO a helpful correction of language which is important; it is defensible. I think it is better to disclose openly now that this is going on rather than allow others to complain, if perhaps the June 1 deadline is met, that the deadline was met only by some sneaky tactic. If mentioning it engenders discussion of the signpost article that is fine. For some factual information that you could choose to report about the IMDB zapping going on, please see User:Doncram/IMDBzap, a workpage where i and another editor have been tracking the numbers we have addressed. Our current tally is at the bottom, at 820 now. The percentage of IMDB-sourced articles has been running about 10% of articles checked. Also relevant are totals in new categories of IMDB-only sourced BLP articles and IMDB-sourced articles, Category:Articles sourced only by IMDB and Category:Articles sourced by IMDB. These show 84 IMDB-only and 447 others, respectively. We believe we have zapped 820 so far, which is not consistent with the sum of 84+447. It wouldn't match exactly because sometimes (relatively rarely though) when i have found an entirely adequately sourced article, i have removed BLP unreferenced tag and not put in either of the BLP IMDB refimprove tags. The categories may not be updating very quickly, and/or some articles may be being edited by others and the BLP IMDB tag removed (though I am really not aware of any such effort, so I think it is the categories not updating quickly).

I think your draft outline of an article was fine; I hope you will just submit something promptly and get it into the works. The Signpost editor(s) could/should help edit it, i would hope. Best regards, --doncram (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see in your linked BLP sandbox you self-noted that you had submitted an article...thanks! In case it is relevant, i visited to say that the discrepancy in totals that i mentioned above has been resolved. In discussion at User talk:LiberalFascist mostly and then also at Template talk:Multiple issues, Joshua/LiberalFascist helped change the "Multiple issues" template which i had mistakenly believed was handling BLP IMDB refimprove items. It's all fixed now, and the category totals are around 1100 now, close enough to my now-larger accumulated total of IMDBs zapped, allowing for a couple hundred of them to have subsequently fixed by others watching those pages. Seems like the IMDB zapping is being successful in identifying problem clearly and then getting others to fix the pages, which is ideal. Current, up to the minute totals are:

in the IMDB-only refimprove category: 0 and

in the IMDB refimprove category (excluding the IMDB-only ones): 0

Thanks again! --doncram (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just saw your posts at WT:MILHIST

Since you're an excellent copyeditor, you might (or might not) enjoy the collegial atmosphere at WP:SHIPA, the A-class ship reviews. Always room for you. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of small settlements

I saw that you contributed to the discussion at WT:N#Notability of small settlements, so you may be interested in a policy proposal I have made concerning this issue at the Village pump. Regards. Claritas (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posner

Hey Maurreen, in case you're not watching it, can you take a look at the Posner talk page? I'd like to get your opinion on how to hand the new charges against him. The Miami New Times is the source and I wonder if it's kosher. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced BLP Signpost story

Hey Maurreen, just to let you know I moved your message for the Signpost to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions, it should get picked up there for inclusion in the next issue. Thanks for contributing! — Pretzels^Hii! 22:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a dictionary

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Populated places CfD question

I'm asking the people in the Consensus? section of the "Populated places" discussion about a key point that has created some division in this giant nomination. When you were reaching this consensus, did you think "Cities and towns" categories (not "Cities, towns, and villages") should have been part of the changes? If you have an opinion on this, please comment at the nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Maurreen. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards.
Message added 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Acather96 (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

As you have commented in an ANI thread or RfC relating to User:Pedant17, this is to notify you that the same user's conduct is being discussed here, along with sanction proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of WP:BLPNAME

The issue of whether WP:BLPNAME should be revised has come up again. As you participated in a previous discussion on this guideline, you are invited to contribute your views at "Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Concrete proposals". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion for a requested move of WP:Ownership of articles

Hello! I have requested a move for WP:Ownership of articles → WP:Page ownership. As you participated in the previous discussion, could you please voice your opinion again regarding this move, as it is my intention to restart the discussion with a clean slate. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miszabot archiving

Hi Maureen, you may already be aware of this but I wanted to leave you a note about setting up Miszabot auto archiving for talk pages. I noticed you did so here [21] and that's certainly helpful, but you forgot to update the parameters for that page. Fortunately it looks like Miszabot doesn't archive if the target is not a direct subpage of the talkpage in question. I copy and paste code for this too, just remember that when you do so, you have to update the name of the talk page and set the counter to 1 (or if there are already existing archives, set it to whichever number is associated with the latest archive). For an example, see what I did here [22]. I also shortened the cutoff to 60 days, but that's totally optional. Have a nice day! Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vital articles

Sorry I took so long to respond to Vital Articles(I was on Wikibreak). I still feel guilty about what I did, especially since I am not in WikiProject Vital Articles. I should have just deleted one earth(and discussed it on the plain old vital articles page first). The totals don't always add up perfectly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Us441 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity categories discussion

Given your past participation in this discussion, I thought you should see this recent one. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are you

Hi Maurreen; Your name popped up on my watchlist and I thought I should stop and say HI :). Hope things are well. Cheers Mlpearc powwow 19:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of fear

This is an article that you have edited in the past and you appear to me to be an active editor on Wikipedia today. You wish to be aware that the article has been nominated for deletion and provide your opinion by following the link in the panel referring to the proposed deletion. Kind regards --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY HOLIDAYS

HAPPY HOLIDAYS !
Wishing you and yours a very peaceful and joyous holiday season

Mlpearc

Ambience

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.

I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:

Loremaster says he is:

"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

Loremaster wants people to:

"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."

Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

81.151.135.248 (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB[reply]

LOL
Despite the fact that I openly admit to being a technorealist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms, I have let never this point of view influence any of my edits or reverts of the Technological utopianism or Singularitarianism articles. On the contrary, I am the person most responsible for expanding the former article with content some would argue is “pro-techno-utopian” (i.e. passages from James Hughes' book Citizen Cyborg).
I find it disgusting that 81.151.135.248 would take comments I made out of context to falsely make it seem I see my editing of any article as part of my fight for the environment.
In light of this outrageous act of bad faith, I will do everything in my power to get this jerk banned from Wikipedia.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination)

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination)

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination). Jettparmer (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to review the mainspace article Conspiracy Journalism. I would appreciate your feedback.Jettparmer (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Maurreen/archive 9! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedia geography

Category:Wikipedia geography, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting people from journalist category?

Why are you removing people from journalist categories?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Agriculture organizations

Category:Agriculture organizations, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedia good articles on historical figures

Category:Wikipedia good articles on historical figures, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Core biographies

I would appreciate any input you might have at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies#Proposed expansion of list. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Maurreen. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 11:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Maurreen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A brownie for you!

hi i am a newbee and could u please message me i think i would be your friend soo when u get thi thxs please message me back tx it would mean the world to me Wwecenarules (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

hi i am a newbee and could u please message me i think i would be your friend soo when u get thi thxs please message me back tx it would mean the world to me Wwecenarules2 (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European photojournalists

Category:European photojournalists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latin American newspaper editors

Category:Latin American newspaper editors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Publishing terms

Category:Publishing terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nom-1.0COTF

Template:Nom-1.0COTF has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:V0.5 nom possible

Template:V0.5 nom possible has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orthopedic problems

Category:Orthopedic problems, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mschamberlain (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:STICKY listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:STICKY. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:STICKY redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Laun chba ller 22:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global account

Hi Maurreen! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American dentists of English descent

Category:American dentists of English descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reporting

Category:Reporting, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Publishing terms

Category:Publishing terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech Project Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Go Hokies (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of New Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cross-country. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]