User talk:Mav

User Talk for maveric149

If you've been frequenting the RecentChanges page, you might already expect that I am a Wikipediholic -- yep, I admit it (score = 82).
Problem now is, sleeping has switched from a full (i.e. normal) to part time occupation.... oh well - you only live once, there's plenty of time to rest later...

Older messages are in talk archive 1, talk archive 2 and talk archive 3, talk archive 4, talk archive 5, talk archive 6, talk archive 7, talk archive 8, talk archive 9, talk archive 10, talk archive 11, talk archive 12

mav, i will not be touching may 22. :) Kingturtle 06:26 22 May 2003 (UTC)

What about May 21? --mav

Oops. i meant, May 21. I might have a go at May 22 tomorrow. Kingturtle 06:29 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Cool beans - Thanks! --mav

It seems that we were both online at the same time which caused some cnfusion %( You can delete Radagast Slavic, Radagast slavic, Radagast Tolkiens and any other versions that possibly exist except yours Nikola 07:23 22 May 2003 (UTC)

They are harmless as redirects. --mav

Harmless, but needless as well. As you wish. Nikola 20:05 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Mav, I am getting really pissed off and I am writing to you because aside from me and 168, you made the last -- fair and constructive, I thought -- contribution to the talk page for genetic drift. I take your comment seriously, and although I still believe that my verison is better-written and more accurate than 168, I ceased from what you rightly consider a silly revert war. Nevertheless, I have continued to work on the article -- using 168s version as a base, I have made a few changes today. 168 has reverted all of them. Can you blame me for believing that he simply cannot accept me contributing to this article? I made two basic changes: I stated that drift acts on alleles, not individuals, because that is how population geneticists see it. I realize this may seem semantic -- in many cases it is (in clonal organisms it amounts to the same thing, and when it comes to drift caused by accidental death it amounts to the same thing. But when it comes to deviations from the Hardy Weinberg equilibrium it is just wrong; also, to understand the hitchhiking phenomena (in which the natural selection of one allele leads to changes in frequencies of other alleles) one has to see the distinction between allelel and individual. I also added a bit to explain the difference between fixation and extinction (what happens when one allele drifts to 100%, which means another allele has drifted to 0%). I admit that what I wrote could have been rewritten or fleshed out to make it clearer to a lay audience, but 168 just reverted it.

Look Mav, from my point of view I see only one of two possibilities: either I continue to work on the article and keep getting into stupid, pointless, tedious, edit wars with 168, or I stop contributing altogether -- in which case 168 has effectively banned me. I believe this is unfair (although if you really believe I my changes have been wrong or poorly written, or that you believe I have been acting in bad faith and perhaps deserve to be banned, I wish you would tell me). (I would have no objection to blocking both me and 168 from the article for a week, to give time to others to work on it -- although I'd appreciate it if they would at least look at my last version: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Genetic_drift&oldid=947916 which 168 kept reverting)Slrubenstein 21:11 22 May 2003 (UTC)

The last thing I want is for you to stop contributing - the project would be much harmed by your absense. Also from what you have told me and from what I have seen I'm begining to get the feeling that 168 feels that he "owns" the article. If true, this is not acceptable. I'm sorry that I have allowed things to get as bad as they have but personal issues in my life at the moment have limited my time and emotional wherewithal to deal with this situation. But the weekend is approaching so I'll have more time and energy soon. --mav

I really appreciate your comment. I am certainly not going to leave the project -- but I the whole thing really has made me feel hurt and angry. It is my belief that in addition to NPOV, wikipeida will only work if people are willing to make some compromises, to distinguish between what one doesn't like versus what is unacceptable, and it seems that almost any change I make, even the most minor, is now unacceptable to 168. But my personal feelings aside, it is 168's apparent notion of ownership that does concern me the most. I created a stub for Founder's effect and 168 made some changes, and then reverted, with this comment: "oh go ahead and have your inaccurate article to yourself." Now, you know me well enough to understand that I do not consider any article "mine." But I think the implication of 168's gensture is, "founder's effect" will be my article, and "genetic drift" will be his.

For my own sake, as well as the sake of people whom I respect, like you and Lexor, I will stay away from the Genetic drift article for a week. I do want others to work on it. But that will not resolve the underlying issue in this conflict between myself and 168.

Mav, I turn to you in part because you are very knowledgable about biology, but also because you have been around a long time and I trust you. But I certainly don't feel you have any obligation to act as peacemaker, especially when there are other things going on in your life -- you certainly shouldn't apologize for anything that has happened at that article. I just hope you don't mind my turning to you in this instance. In any event, I hope that whatever has been going on in your life is resolving itself in a good way. Peace, Slrubenstein

Thanks - everything should work itself out. :) I'll take a look at the genetic drift article this weekend and begin to merge in parts of your version along with adding some clarifications of 168's points. --mav

Anything of interest happen lately since January that should concern me, particularly in the area of bots or geographic related articles (city/state/county)? I decided to start back up with some of the work I left off of doing. -- Ram-Man

Welcome back! Answer is on your talk page. --mav

.... what are you doing, mav? should I just stop with the citations? (re: Politics of Bermuda diff). wearily, Koyaanis Qatsi

Just a tweak so as not to give the impression that all the text comes from the CIA or DoS. This is really something better suited to a bot.... --mav

Fine, whatever, let rambot do it then. Koyaanis Qatsi. I'm just sick of working on it. first, importing them onto a subpage before we knew subpages were to be avoided, then adding Dept of State info to some of them but getting bored with it and quitting, then moving them off the subpages, then adding the citation but a poorly worded one--it's like pushing a rock up a hill.

No because then you wouldn't have made any net improvements to that set of article. Just like with anything else around here the older versions are improved upon as time goes by ; each of your actions on these articles has improved them. --mav

Mav: I need some advice. The machine learning page is mostly about a sub-type of machine learning, called supervised learning. Is it considered polite to move 90% of the material from an existing page into a new one? If so, would it work to do a "move page" to supervised learning, then go back and replace the re-direct with a more general page with links to the supervised learning page? Let me know.. Thanks -- hike395.

Nah. I don't think that would be considered rude. A move will in fact improve both articles. --mav

Thanks! --hike395

Oooops! Just for fun, I started a little US 395 page off of the link that you added from my Talk page. Unfortunately, you had called it California State Route 395, and I didn't catch the error and just made the page. I've moved the page to US 395, but in the process made two mistaken pages California State Route 395 and USHighway 395. Could you possibly delete them? Thanks! --hike395

Suggest you examine facts before you say a word to me. This Hemp person I see, has Administrative powers so just reverses other peoples work. Last week she drove away 2 other people and before that if you read, others too. Do something about her or do you tolerate articles that are opinions, and approve of Hemp deleting facts etc? THAT Sir, is a violation of Wikipedia Policy, not my words in any manner whatsoever. Have you read the crap she put in? Take a look at my contributiuons. If you want me to leave, Mr. Maverick, please say so and I will stop contributing immediately. If not, do something about user Hemp instead of veiled threats to me. Jacques Delson 23:01 25 May 2003 (UTC)

That is what happens when you sully yourself by slinging insults ; even if you are right you look wrong. If your aim is to make her look bad then do so by being real nice and cooperative, not by being ultra rude. --mav

I didn't know I'd driven anyone away. Interesting. JHK

I must have missed that part as well. Glad to see you around again JHK. :) --mav

Do you have a problem with me? I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to intrude in my affairs? Perhaps you will explain because I sincerely doubt you want me moving what you write all over the place or messing around with your pages, do you? Jacques Delson 03:41 26 May 2003 (UTC)

I think Martin is preparing the framework to SoftBan you for the obvious violations of Wikipedia:Wikiquette you have committed. See "Troll talk" under m:Bans for more info. --mav

So what about the perpetrator of the ethnic abuse on Jacques' page? Wikiquette shmikiquette.

Ha! I saw those H1 headings on my user talk page and immediately thought that it was some disconted vandal defacing it in revenge for me reverting Julie p8i6%#^$#@ is a slut, or the like. Then I read the sig. :)

I'm not convinced that your scheme (as just suggested) would be an improvement, Mav (there is a right way and a wrong way, and we might as well do it the right way) (peace! just my opinion!) - but I can't see any great problems with it either. If you can beg, bribe, threaten, or otherwise persuade the developers to make that change, then go right ahead - I am agnostic on that matter and won't argue.

One day a few years ago, I was driving rather aimlessly through some of the countryside a few tens of kilometres from home. It has rained a week or three previously, the grass was fresh and green, and after a while we passed a paddock with a flock of sheep and new-born lambs. They were all standing along the fenceline on the short grass, leaning through the fence to eat the long grass on the roadside. All except for one. This little fellow, being all of 10 or 12 inches high, had squeezed through the fence and he was standing in the long grass leaning through the fence eating the short grass. Life is like that. :)

(And I wish I'd had a camera!)

(PS: one of these days, someone is going to die and leave me some money. I'll sell the business and take a few years off to do a degree in Biological Resource Management. Got any moderately weathy relatives going spare?) Tannin

LOL Alas, no. :) --mav

Hello, Mr. Maveric. I was wondering if you could remind me of the current policy on pre-emptive disambiguation. I thought we only added disambiguation text to titles - "Old Street (London)" and so on - when there was more than one article competing for the simpler name... -- Oliver P. 11:04 26 May 2003 (UTC)

"Old Street" is a very generic name for a street and likely to be shared by many other streets around the world. Therefore a more precise name is warrented. --mav

But if there are no other Old Streets that actually have articles, then a more precise name isn't needed. I thought I remembered this being your argument! Maybe I've remembered wrongly... -- Oliver P. 18:53 26 May 2003 (UTC)

It really depends on if there are other "Old Streets" we might one day want an article on (I'm fairly certain that we will). You also have to remember that each article we have serves as an example of how we title things; if people don't see any attempt to disambiguate a street name then we are going to have a big problem with disambiguation for common street names. This is about creating a more precise article name not really about preemptive disambiguation (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)). That is why our article on Einstein is at Albert Einstein. If you can think of a better naming scheme that doesn't look like standard disambiguation then please implement it. In short; please respect the fact that other people in other cities with other streets called "Old Street" may also want to have an article on their "Old Street." "Old Street", by itself, is just not precise enough to be a title that can stand on its own. --mav

Ah, thanks for that link. I hadn't read that page before. I see your point that Old Street isn't a precise title. I meant no disrespect to people with other Old Streets, but of course they could change things when they decided to add their own street - either by adding their own Old Street to the same page (cf. bridge, a word with very many meanings, although admittedly that page is a complete mess...), or by moving the page and creating a new disambiguation page at that time. But never mind, it makes little difference one way or the other... -- Oliver P. 19:16 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Go ahead and work on the date pages, mav, I don't have time to do any of it tonight. -- Zoe

Will do. :) --mav

Hey, where were you a couple days ago! ;-) Like I said, not feeding anymore! JHK

You took the words right out of my mouth. :) --mav

Damnation! Fed him again -- but I really wish he'd stop polluting the site with nasty comments about me -- I'd say 90% of his talk comments, even to other people, refer to me in a distinctly negative manner. I feel like HJ -- do I want possible colleagues or students to see this? Still trying not to feed -- but sometimes they seem to be starving!JHK

Bad boy! You've allowed your page grow to 38K again. :-) Anyway, dear boy (Jeez. That's what comes from listening to a Noel Coward song while drinking Earl Grey tea from a china cup. I start saying 'dear boy'! How gay is all that! Though Coward might not have approved of me sipping earl grey tea from china cups while dressed in biker's leathers right now!) . . . anyway . . . I've noticed a problem that is arising over the opening paragraphs of many royal and papal pages. We use numerous styles, many of them illogical and a throwback to when wiki named royal pages by personal name not royal nomenclature. Some pages put personal name at the start of the opening sentence and bury the actual royal title that is the name of the article somewhere later. I've found some where people have removed royal titles altogether, or throw a tantrum if you suggest the royal name should come first!

I've proposed a solution on the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) page. Take a look and let me know what you think, dear boy! :-) PS: I've pushed your page up to 39K hee hee! lol FearÉIREANN 01:10 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Kylie Minogue, just added to the 1968 page and presumably has been or will soon be added to May 28, better known for being a singer than an actress? I know that's how it is here in the States, at least, not so sure if that's the case elsewhere. But it certainly ought to say singer in there. -- John Owens 08:05 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm just copying entries from May 28. The only section I confirm on the day pages is the events section. Please edit the year page the best way you think is fit and I'll edit the day page to match. --mav

Would like your expert opinion on large scale revert done silently @ History of China (see gripe @ talkpage) -- prat

done. --mav