User talk:Matthew Proctor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


It isn't an issue of whether those characters are different enough from the norm as there really is no norm. The term anti-hero has been applied to a wide range of fictional characters for very different reasons. If we started coming up with and differentiating types based on individual characters' motives we'd have a huge mess of an article since most of the characters are identified as anti-heroes for different reasons. I don't disagree with the logic of your addition, I just think that it's too specific and detailed to benefit the article and would set a precedent for other, equally specific and lengthy additions. If we began listing how every anti-hero fit the definition of anti-hero the article would become far too long and unmaintainable. It's just that with a tricky term like this conciseness and clarity seems better than going in depth into specific examples. Maybe you could try something shorter and more succint while avoiding being redundant and merely adding another example? --TM 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Article rename[edit]

I went ahead and renamed encapsulation (pharmacology) to capsule (pharmacy) partially on the basis of your support on the talk page. MaxEnt (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Women writers / female writers[edit]

Hi! I see you're having a go at changing 'women writers' to 'female writers' in article titles and category names. I don't have strong feelings about this, but there are quite a few changes to be made in order to carry this out thoroughly! In case you run the risk of making a change which others will feel strongly about (though I see no one responded to your raising this at Category talk:Women writers), I've mentioned it at the talk page of User:scribblingwoman, who's been involved with several of these pages. Dsp13 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers dude. Yeah, I realise it's a big task. But there are some bad English things that I let slide, and some that really fuck me off. ;) I plan on getting it (mostly?) finished tonight or tomorrow night. And as it's really a semantic thing, I doubt anyone will have any objections. But I'm glad someone noticed! :) --Matthew Proctor (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I was coming here to say something about this too. The fact is that the female/women thing is a lot bigger than the writers. Consensus has largely been to go with common language references regardless of formal grammar rules, and it's gone on a case-by-case basis. So, for instance, "women writers" is the common term in use in scholarship, not "female writers". I would really hold off on these and instead propose them on talk pages and try to get consensus before changing them. ... Categories, for instance, if you're trying to rename them should be taken to WP:CFD (categories for discussion). It's good to be bold but you don't want to end up wasting a lot of your own and everyone else's time swapping back & forth if you're editing against consensus. So, I would try to seek consensus first in this matter (general advice for areas in which there has bee a lot of contention). --Lquilter (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the normal way to do this is to propose a renaming by tagging the categories with {{cfr}}. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, looks like you're getting a lot of discussion on this. Moving these categories is a very, very complicated thing with far reaching effects. It's more complicated than just changing the one word: you have to create and organize each new category you have created, as well as redirecting all the old. For the time-being, I'm going to revert as many of these changes as I come across. Please enter into the appropriate renaming discussion at WP:CFD. (As a matter of fact, I already posted something there suggesting that these be merged back together, with "women" winning as it is better developped.) If people agree with you, you'll need some help. Let me know, and I'll work on it with you. Portia1780 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah... I seem to have got it into my head from somewhere that categories couldn't simply be renamed. I will head off to WP:CFD and make the recommendation there. I'd ask that anyone who comes across this though at least leaves Category:Female writers by century intact. I changed every page inside that category over, and the new categories are nested in exactly the same way as the old ones. The old ones are NOT redirected, because I had no idea such a thing was possible with categories... Thanks guys. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Because categories affect so many articles (and other categories), you should propose new names/mergers before setting off on such a large, time-consuming effort by yourself. (And you cannot redirect.) Wikipedia guidelines specifically to look for similar categories before creating new ones. They encourage you to use what's already there. Wikipedia:Categories#Look_before_you_leap
I've already reverted all of your changes, as they were problematic. If the discussion decides on "female writers," I will personally help you revert MY changes. However, in the meantime, let's wait for consensus before making such widespread changes (it took me about 3 hours to fix everything back the way it was). To participate in the discussion, click here.
I appreciate all your hard work, and I'm sorry to be OCD.Portia1780 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
As someone who tagged many many Australian writers with this category, I'd like to add my two cents' worth. As lquilter says, the issue is wider than one of grammar. I'll add another perspective. I am a librarian. Subject thesauri (and Wikipedia categories work somewhat similarly to the way subject headings do in libraries) used by national institutions such as the National Library of Australia and the US's Library of Congress use subject headings like "women writers", "women composers". For that reason among others, I was happy with "women writers". If I can remember back far enough, the headings used to be "Women as writers" etc. I think some of these still exist but I believe that, over time, these have been concatenated/simplified. It may not be grammatical but the use of "women" is, I believe, preferred terminology in the wider world and so is used in the concatenated form even though an adjectival term may seem more correct. Hope this helpsSterry2607 (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

speedy nom[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Australian female writers, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

duplicates Category:Australian women writers

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Category:Australian female writers|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.   ⇒ bsnowball  07:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

re the above, please go about major changes such as this through the appropriate process. & please think about whether it's necessary at all before you do so. there's been a lot of boring going around in circles discussion about these cats at cfd in the past :) thx ben  ⇒ bsnowball  07:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


...for your support in trying to make out of Uruguay a good article. It's a featured article on the German wikipedia. I wonder if it would be the same here someday. Greetings, --Góngora (Talk) 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


WikiProject Auckland This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifarious1 09:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new law-related task force for the J.D. curriculum[edit]

Hi Matthew Proctor,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

  • Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
  • It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
  • Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.
  • I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.
2. If you're a law student,
(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)
3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 02:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

UK Supreme Court case drive[edit]

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to read this message.

As you may know, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has been hearing cases for about 18 months now, taking over from the House of Lords as the Court of Last Resort for most appeals within the United Kingdom.

During that time, the court has handed down 87 judgements (82 of which were on substantive appeals). Wikipedia covers around 11 of these and rarely in any detail. Some very important cases (including Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 (prenups) and Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9 (extradition)) are not covered at all.

I'm proposing a drive to complete decent quality articles for all, or at least a good proportion of these cases as soon as possible. If we can eliminate the backlog then a small group of editors might want to stick around to ensure articles are created relatively speedily for new cases. Since the Court process, on average, one case a week this shouldn't be too great a task.

I'd like to ask you to help with this drive, and help make Wikipedia a credible source for UKSC case notes.

How you can help

  • Complete that template and add it to existing cases.
  • Improve formatting & prose. Copyediting.
  • Improve the coverage of cases we have articles on, including adding content, sourcing and fact-checking
  • Create new articles for UKSC cases
  • Improve the categorisation and listing of UKSC cases.

Thanks for reading!, Sincerely Bob House 884 (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Drop Bears[edit]

I was going to object to placing an image on Drop Bears (under the theory that we don't need to encourage Drop Bear fans to insist they are real), but that image has sufficiently obvious image manipulation that it's a net plus to the article. Thanks, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd[edit]

I have performed the move. That has left a large number of double redirects, but a bot should fix those within hours. I will check tomorrow that it has. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Just a quick check-in cuz busy with study for boards. Wanted to give you a heartfelt thanks for your editorial work on the Schizoaffective page. You're absolutely right: it contained too much repetition (from working on the page while trying to browbeat its contents into my first- & second-year residents). Really appreciate your contributions. Thorough, accurate & helpful. Thanks!! Youtalkfunny (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of birth control, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyrol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tracing in English law, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breach of trust (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Politics of Germany may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[File:Frank-Walter Steinmeier 04.jpg|thumb|200px|[[Frank-Walter Steinmeier]], current foreign
  • [[File:Sigmar Gabriel-2009 ArM.jpg|thumb|200px|[[Sigmar Gabriel]]: [[[[Social Democratic Party of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Matthew Proctor, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)