User talk:Maurreen

I am here intermittently.

• User talk:Maurreen archive 1, Sep-Oct 2004
• User talk:Maurreen archive 2, Nov 2004
• /archive 3, Dec 04 - Jan 05
• /archive 4, August 2005

Not sure you'll read this, but am sorry to read you are taking a break. Steve block talk 09:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Philippines has been blanked to complete the transition to Category:Filipino Wikipedians (see Wikipedia:User categorisation for details). Coffee 08:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you visited VfD's of Prince Sigismund of Prussia, Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich of Russia, Prince Felix of Denmark and Prince Nikolai of Denmark. They are different cases of royal children, whose notability is questionable (for different reasons), and theior articles tend to be full of royal nursery crap, lamentations, hollow information etc. 217.140.193.123 14:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently two proposals for a poll under discussion which I would appreciate your input on. Steve block talk 18:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that, but I'm not really sure what the problem is other than the fact that we don't seem to understand one another. When you oppose my suggestions, you generally don't give a reason for it, which makes discussion rather hard. For instance, regarding the issue of using approval voting in the recent Category Titles poll, do you 1) object to approval voting, 2) have no problems with approval voting but object because it wasn't discussed beforehand, 3) have no problems with approval voting but object because I did it, or 4) something else? It's hard for me to tell the difference (but for the record, the reason I picked approval voting was because it's the easiest system, and is used for questions of preference everywhere else on the Wiki, to my best knowledge). Radiant_>|< 11:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• In approval voting, adding 'oppose' sections to the individual choices doesn't make any sense. You already opposed option #1 by supporting option #2 and #2, so your vote was superfluous. Not to mention the counterproposal you added - why exactly did you want to oppose option #1 in so many different ways? Radiant_>|< 07:46, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, then you should have made your proposal an approval vote. As it stands now, I created an approval vote - then you created a binary vote - then you contest my poll because it didn't use the same format as yours, even if your poll didn't exist when I created mine. Radiant_>|< 07:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/jguk CDThieme 20:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen, can you advise me about something? I recall that you and Jguk had a discussion about the appropriateness of moving a deleted RfC to a user subspace. Someone has just done that to me, and I'd like to challenge it, but I don't know what the outcome was of your dialogue with Jguk. Do you happen to know about whether this is allowed? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Maurreen, that's very helpful. If you can direct me to where I might find the links for those discussions, I'd appreciate it, but only if you can lay your hand on them easily. Please don't go hunting for them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:15, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Removal of Maurreen's vote (see discussion), and
• Handling of pages in the Wikipedia namespace, such as --
  • Splitting RFCs from WP:RFC
  • Changes made from Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. (See discussion.

Maurreen (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Was this listed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Uncle Ed 18:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Today I requested comments about splitting the Requests for Comment page. Maurreen (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Those changes to WP:RFC and WP:CENT had been discussed, yes. The vote in question was a duplicate vote. Radiant_>|< 08:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

At best, there was no consensus for the changes. Maurreen (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've asked several times before, what is it exactly that you object to? Generally when you oppose me, you do not give any reason for doing so. Wikipedia is not a democracy. You do not vote on changes. You find out if there are objections, and you address them. Radiant_>|< 22:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

1. I'm responding to Radiant on the relevant pages.
2. An RFC has been recently added about WP:CENT. Maurreen (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not a democracy. You do not vote on changes. You find out if there are objections, and you address them. Radiant_>|< 08:03, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi - You haven't commented at Wikipedia_talk:Category_titles in a few days. I've posted a quick survey (among the "regulars" there) to try to establish consensus on something. I'd appreciate your vote on the matter. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I gather from your response that you don't agree (and appreciate the willingness to preserve the unanimous agree by not adding your disagree). I'm curious what your preference actually is. I notice you said you disagree with Radiant's "simple statements" 1 (specific list of "things of foo"), 2 (specific list of "things in foo"), and 3 (simple definitions). Are there specific entires in the "things of foo" and "things in foo" lists you object to? I'm thinking about suggesting a single rule along the lines of all categories which are members of category:categories by country shall have a naming convention which will apply to all of their member categories. Is this something you'd favor? From there, either we'd have one naming discussion per general type of category (and there are several hundred), or perhaps establish guidelines (like "man-made objects in foo") for groups of categories (but I think these would really need to be guidelines and not rules). Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply (and the rfa support). I've added a proposal for a generic rule, that I think matches your preference fairly well. I think "bottom up" is more wiki-like and included a "start with what we have" provision, but I suspect this will generate some controversy. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reverting WP:RFC. Two debates that you started yourself show obvious support for the current version. Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy nor a democracy - your assertion that changes should not be made before consensual support for the change is shown is therefore wrong. And as has been pointed out several times, the new version has more functionality than the old one. Radiant_>|< 10:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion of them not being at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion, I have spoken to Radiant regarding this and we agreed to publicised them at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Speedy category renaming in this instance. I thought I'd mention it to keep you in the loop. Steve block talk 08:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen:

Regarding Call_for_Help RfC a while ago, you probably that there were not two users complaining, but rather one, CDang.

CDang is not a native English speaker, and was in a fairly critical sentence using language that I could not disambiguate and rephrase. He reverted a change unilaterally (well, I guess that is common), made insults that I could not understand (common, I am after all English), and as far as I can tell may have made an RfC appeal in contravention of the RfC rules (no history of attempted reconciliation, and only having a single complainant.)

This is not an RfC. Rather, I would like you to monitor activity on this page especially with respect to my attempt to translate and refine his "after making a protection" phrase as "after assessing the scene, and ... if it is safe to approach", consistent with American Red Cross and other U.S. bodies current doctrine.

The other activity on the page is related to possible merger with other pages, or as I favo[u]r a proper allocation of material between distress call, distress signal, and call for help. I hope to encourage constructive debate on this topic.