User talk:Maurreen

I may be here irregularly. Or I may not.

• 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

Break

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)

Filipino Wikipedians

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)

royal babies

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)

Wikipedia talk:Category titles

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)

RFM?

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)

Jguk for admin?

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

RfC in user subspace

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)

Moved from Requests for mediation

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

category titles

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)

Stop reverting

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)

Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Speedy category renaming

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)

Call for Help

Maurreen:

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

CDang is not a native English speaker, and was in a fairly important sentence using language that I could not disambiguate and rephrase clearly. 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 he is, well, not), 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. And perhaps consistent with his intent, though I fear he may revert it because he believes that it does not reflect his understanding of what "after making a protection" means.

The other activity on the page is related to possible merger with other pages (as called for in a recent VfD that voted for retention), 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.

Miscellaneous deletion

Hi there! Could you please take a look at the page, because it doesn't seem to work any more. You may have missed or typoed something when renaming it. I think the new name is fine, btw. Radiant_>|< 08:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• " 11:29, September 2, 2005 Sjorford m (Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Log/Current moved to Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Log/Current)" - that seems to have fixed the problem. Have you checked for double redirs, btw? Radiant_>|< 15:52, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Double redirs

FYI A "Double Redirect" is when A redirects to B, and B redirects to C. In this case, a person visiting or clicking on A will not be automatically sent to C, but be left at the B page, that has a redirect but nothing else. The solution is normally to change A so that it redirects directly to C. The same problem applies with any chain which goes through more than one redirect. All redirects should point to the proper utimate target, not at other redirect pages. When a page is moved, if there were redirects pointing at the source page, they must normamly be manually changed to point at the destination of the move, the move function does not do this automatically. DES ^(talk) 16:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to your Katrina Villages Offer of Resume Help

Thanks, Maurreen. That's a great offer. Let's figure out how you can begin helping now, before there are any Katrina Villages. See [1] Sept. 6 Contributions.

We might think of the folks who will need resume assistance in 3 categories. Those who:

  1. have a resume and would like to revise it to reflect their new circumstances
  2. have never prepared a resume and want to learn how to do it
  3. don't know what a resume is, don't know why one might be needed and might have trouble reading or writing well enough to create one

The first group can contact you directly at the internet address above.

The second group could use some instruction. Do you know of existing web sites that teach resume preparation in a straightforward manner? Set up a page that readers can use to bone up on their resume skills. If you can't point us to existing resources for this, write one yourself. Once users have absorbed the basic information and drafted a preliminary resume they can contact you for advice on improving it.

The third group will need to put together some more resources for themselves, including:

   * someone to read and write for them
   * someone to ask leading questions about their skills and work experience
   * a plan to complete their basic education while working

Just because someone doesn't read or hasn't had the opportunity to work at a paying job doesn't mean he/she has no skills and nothing to offer. Building a resume is an opportunity to assess your accomplishments and resources. It's a chance to accentuate the positive, advertise yourself and raise self-esteem.

Is there anyone else near Releigh, NC who can work with Maurreen? Please respond on the Katrina Villages Contributors page, on this page and contact Maurreen directly.

Wikipedia:RFC reform

So, is a user RFC only generate comments? does it have any effects if something goes to arbitration? I've had editors tell me filing a user rfc is like putting someone in teh stockade. I had a huge blowout occur because I withdrew certification on an RFC because the person completely left wikipedia and I thought it might bring him back. (some were quite upset that I did something as unorthodox as withdraw certification, and saw it as part of a pattern of bad RFC's). (The RFC was about user Bensaccount if you're curious). I've had one admin hound me ever since I filed an RFC against her even after I withdrew certification over a month ago (user SlimVirgin if your'e curious). So, if a user RFC really isn't no big deal, could we get that in writing on the user RFC page? FuelWagon 03:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, apparently it is the unsaid indirect effects of a user RFC that is generating a lot of heat. I had previously suggested that RFC's be inadmissable in arbitration, so that people can make comments freely and not have to worry about it and so that a bad faith RFC can be summarily ignored. If arbcom wants evidence, people can always resubmit their coments from RFC's, but no one else can submit someone else's comments or mention votes or anything else. FuelWagon 03:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls

Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 10:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Core topics

Hi Maurreen,

I'm a new member of the WP1.0 editorial team. I have spent many hours going over all the ideas proposed on the Wikipedia 1.0 pages for finding acceptable articles, as I wanted to summarise the main ideas as a prelude to the team actively working on them. Your idea of working on a few hundred "must-have" articles is clearly one of the main approaches, and indeed I hope that I would be able to help work on it myself. I summarised it as "1. Define a list of core topics, identify articles. 2. Use a "collaboration of the week" approach to bring articles up to standard, working through alphabetically till complete. 3. Once complete, move one level deeper into each subject, define new topics." My questions are:

• Do you still advocate this approach? Have you made any changes since your original posting?
• Is my 3 step summary correct? (I realise it's brief, but we can link to more details if needed)
• What should this project be called? I have called it Core Topics in my notes, do you have a better name?
• In your opinion, do you think we should stick with your list at core topics, or do you prefer another list such as LOAALSH? (I don't have any preference, I'm just finding out it you do).
• What progress (if any) has been made on this since January? I realise that things have been pretty much stalled, but if things have been achieved I'd like to know about it.

I am also trying to piece things together on what I call the "Featured articles first" approach, do you have any comments on that? I'll post things on the team page in a few days, feel free to edit things there as well if I've got anything wrong. Thanks, Walkerma 20:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen, thanks for your very prompt reply on my talk page. I notice that the editorial team is getting quite big. If we can harness that, I think we can do a surprising amount. We only have about 5-6 active people at WP:Chem yet we are making great progress on around 400 articles - a lot depends on how the challenges are presented. Also, good progress & activity tend to attract more people. Cheers, Walkerma 20:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I just wanted to find out your opinion on the new table on the Core topics work page. If there's something wrong with it, I'd like to find out now before I spend a lot of time doing assessments and filling out the table. And of course, I'd be very happy if you want to do some assessments yourself! Thanks, Walkerma 21:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you SO MUCH for all of those assessments! Don't worry about fitting them into the table, I'll do that tomorrow when I have a few minutes. Most of the table will remain static, only the assessment and the comments will change- the rest of the information is to help in getting people to fix the articles (we can't do more than a handful ourselves!). If it still seems too complicated when it's up & running, I can take out any columns you think are unnecessary. Till then, please keep doing what you're doing!

I did want to check up exactly how you are assessming the articles. I have used this assessment system. With this, A-Class means {ready- meaning you could at least consider it for FA peer review) and B-Class means "usable" (WP 0.5?) if it's free from POV & copyright problems, and not in need of a rewrite. I noticed that you introduced a C-grade that I haven't used- should I call this a "Start" grade? I notice that some long articles such as Chemistry and Clothing are listed as C-grade, but the only comment is the lack of refs- can you elaborate? Thanks a lot, and keep up the good work, Walkerma 21:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a lot more of the background links to the tables, and also added your comments. I notice that your comment "stubby" always correlates with an article I would class as "Start-Class", so I have taken that as the assessment, along with stubs you tagged. Cheers, Walkerma 06:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Business and Economics

Hi, Would you be interested in joining WikiProject Business and Economics? It was started recently, so it requires some people to chip in. Thanks. --Pamri • Talk 02:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Disputed tag in Manual of Style

Maurreen, I'm proposing removing a Disputed tag from Wikipedia:Manual of Style which I think you inserted on Sept 27th. It looks like the tag was disputing the rules for spelling the abbreviation "U.S.", but the dispute appears to have ended while the tag persists. See my entry in the MOS talk page for details.

If you don't object, then No Reply Necessary (NRN). Thanks. JDLH | Talk 05:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Jguk 2 Arbitration request

Since you were involved / gave evidence in the first arbitration case involving User:Jguk and date notation, I thought you would be interested in a new arbitration request that has been lodged, again regarding User:Jguk and date notation. Please see WP:RFAr#jguk 2 if you would like to comment. Sortan 19:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiSort Project

Hey, I have started the WikiSort Project. Come on over and check it out.the1physicist 20:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Stub categories

Hi. Over at the stub-sorting WikiProject, we have just discovered some stub categories that you created back in August. Please don't create stub categories out of process. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting for information on proposing new stub categories. Thanks. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you .......

Can you create this: Wikiprdians: Paranormal Experiencers/Interested in the Paranormal ? I bet there are MILLIONS of Wikis out there who has had some really bizarre experiences, and/or are interested in Paranormal matters, such as ghosts,UFOs,aliens,Bigfoot,Champ,The Loc Ness Monster,The Jersey Devil,Lizard Man,etc.Martial Law 07:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi, as a (former) Marine, please check out the matching peer review. Thanks. --Predator capitalism 11:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Greek literature a candidate at the Wikipedia:European Union collaboration

You have supported Greek literature at the WP:IDRIVE some time ago. I have now renominated it at the new Wikipedia:European Union collaboration. Please consider supporting it there if you are still interested! --Fenice 13:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Request edit of News topic

Could you please consider cleaning up the "news" topic? RachunZero 08:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it Maurreen. I didn't touch it myself because I'm too new at this. I thought that the comments on objectivity didn't belong, that the news values mentioned should be more aligned with that article, and that some history of news could be added. RachunZero 12:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

1.0 COTW

The reason I said Collaboration of the Month is because I don't think we have enough *active* participants, however we can try doing COTW and see how it goes. If little improvement is made, then it can be changed to COTF (Fortnight) or just scratch it altogether. I'm up for it. Just to be clear, will this Collaboration work on expanding essential articles on WP and not doing tasks for the 1.0 project? Is that right? I'm up for it. :) Gflores ^Talk 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your signature

I saw that your signature seems to have broken. If you want your sig to work again, you probably should change it to [[User:Maurreen|Maureen]] [[User talk:Maurreen|(talk)]] and select the option "use raw signatures". For more information, please see WP:SIGHELP. – ABCD^e✉ 20:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Your MathCOTW nomination won!

Meekohi 14:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Hello. I noticed your name was bolded on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts, where you are listed as having more than ten thousand edits. I see that your last RfA, over a year ago, did not pass chiefly because your account was a bit too new at the time. Your recent contributions look very good to me. You use edit summaries, which is important to many regular RfA voters. I can't see any reason a second RfA now would not be a shoo-in. Would you like to be nominated? Jonathunder 20:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

For your role in WP:1.0. Sincerely, Gflores ^Talk 06:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

WP 1.0 stuff

Hi Maurreen,

I wanted to check that you were OK with the new navigation box and userbox. AtionSong's new logo is rather better than my crudely done "plain vanilla" one, I think. I would also like to re-vamp the main page in a major way to reflect where we are now rather than where we were in September. Are you going to be on Wikipedia much this week? If I know you're around I'll create it as a test page and let you review/edit it before I upload it. Would that be OK?

Regarding Vir's long posting on the Core Topics discussion - I think Vir is someone who cares deeply about how information is organised, and as such he will be a great asset to this project. I think he's still fairly new to Wikipedia (about 6 weeks only?), and so it's natural that he's interested in the process at this point. Would you mind if we put together a "more core topics" page? My concern is that if we wait till all of the initial 160 or so are fully "done" before even we consider anything more, we will not publish even a test version of WP1.0 for several years. I don't think we can just release 200 articles, even as a test. If we can identify weak areas now in the next 100, we can (I think) attract more help, and work can still proceed with the COTF etc. (Btw, I am preparing to contribute on humanities & toy, that's why I've neglected technology). I'm itching to get Core Topics linked up with the FAs and the WikiProject listings, once we can bridge that gap we can start planning a small test release, IMHO. The additional 100 or so should be the bridge we need. on a related note, what do you think of Titoxd's roadmap? Walkerma 16:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I came here to reply to you post on my talk page. I see you've chatted with Martin about categorizing. Yes, I care about the theory and existing (and emerging new) methods for that. Seems important to me -- for the future joint organization of Wikipedia publications and top level reference tools -- for classification theory to be made more explicit and available. Anyway, I hope to look at the Humanities article some time. No, not hard feelings -- but I was frustrated to see the core topics categorization process possibly mushroom when the first step seemed like it might be close to closure. Glad you suggested possible closure. At same time, I think a lot of mushrooming of ideas and options for categorization schemes is the next step -- after getting a working model in place. And whatever creative bursts move that along are good. Thx, Vir 04:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Maurreen

Just ran across your name in a vote at WP:RFA and was glad to see you back at Wikipedia. Hope you are well, Steve block talk 21:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Technology

I agree with your comments in response to my question. The "History of technology" section is far and away the best of the article and the rest is academic in a 3rd-year-undergraduate-essay kind of way: far too long without saying much. Which brings me to a concern for WP1.0. Many Wikipedia articles are now beginning to suffer from wiki bloat. They just keep getting added too, without attention to the basics of how to write decent articles. With respect to size, I've always found the following to be valid:

Articles themselves should be kept relatively short. Say what needs saying, but do not overdo it. Articles should aim to be less than 32KB in size. When articles grow past this amount of readable text, they should be broken up to improve readability and ease of editing.

I've haven't noticed any discussion of article size on the project pages. I would like to raise it, if it hasn't already been thrashed to death. Um, well actually, I would like to raise it anyway. What are your views? Sunray 08:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, it isn't an issue for many of the articles currently identified. However, Technology is certainly an example of the problem. The article isn't as bad as many I've come across recently, but, at 38 KB, has begun to ramble and has far too many sections. The net effect is that it doesn't hold the reader's attention. The solution, IMO is bold editing and re-writing in order to bring an article like that up to Featured article status. Nothing beats succinct, well written articles in my book. Sunray 06:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Africa GA

The article, Africa, was recently nominated for Good article stauts, but unfortunately failed. For the reasons why it failed see Talk: Africa. Please use these suggestions to improve this article and re-apply for GA. Much thanks, Highway 07:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Inadequate pages

If I read you right, you are suggesting that an "Inadequate" tag be developed that would supplant the various clean-up tags that appear on article pages. This sounds reasonable. I especially like the principle that there be discussion of an articles' weaknesses on the talk page. This doesn't always happen now.

The one exception to this might be the NPOV tag. As NPOV is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, it should probably remain on the article page. Sunray 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Bot

Your recent edit of some article was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If you were experimenting, know that everyone really is welcome to contribute, but tests should be done in the sandbox. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. // Tawkerbot2 20:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

WP 1.0

Hey - Noticed you're working on the Version 1.0 project - would love to get involved since it's probably a whole lot more useful than my usual aimless editing and categorizing. If you could provide some guidance or a to-do list, I'd be thrilled to jump right into the project. Thanks, hope to hear from you! Paul 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Just so you know, when you want to redirect a page (when you want something to a "see such and such") instead of keeping two articles the syntax #REDIRECT [[page name here]] is the accepted syntax. You got the bot auto warning because the redirect didn't match the pattern, I know its good faith and I've fixed it for you. If you have any questions feel free to leave me a message :) --

Thats your problem :) -- Tawker 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

You got a message for this edit [2]. It looks like a bad redirect. joshbuddy^talk 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Maurreen,

I just wanted to thank you for the barnstar last month, it really meant a lot, coming from the founder of the WP1.0 Editorial Team. I assumed I would be in touch with you so I could thank you then, but I guess I've been incredibly busy recently. I appreciate your comments, and I'm excited about your new proposal too. Walkerma 04:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Shock and Awe

Hello Maurreen, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).

In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[3] It now says that "Shock and Awe is a military doctrine," whereas is used to say exactly what type of military doctrine it falls into: "Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of Conventional warfare, I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of unconventional warfare, don't you?

Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," deleted the "Rapid dominance" article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are not the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link to it?

I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --Larnue the dormouse 22:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)