text:
Talk:Population history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas

Depopulation from disease suggestions (from a sockpuppet)
I think this section could use more counter points since currently most of it is dedicated to opinions that disease on it's own isn't primarily to blame. Numerous scholars challenge this idea but aren't cited at all. In addition I think the paragraphs on Ostler and Reséndez could be trimmed and merged into the same paragraph since they are arguing very similar positions and currently each have their own overly long paragraphs. Ostler's paragraph is mostly quotes and not as easily readable as it could be. Nettless (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

 * The current literature does say that disease on its own isn’t primarily to blame—it is more along the lines of Resendez and Ostler (that colonial violence through removal and slavery laid the groundwork for disease to flourish, I.e. it’s a lot more complicated than simple epidemic collapse). This is why your addition of the sentence “ They now believe that widespread epidemic disease, to which the natives had no prior exposure or resistance, was the primary cause of the massive population decline of the Native Americans” was removed originally and needs to be removed again.
 * I suggest the section lead with European ideas of the period (Divine approval of colonialism), followed by the current scholarly consensus (that colonial violence exacerbated disease proliferation), followed by Cook’s dated theory. The disease-only narrative has been brought up and removed here and on other pages related to Spanish colonialism, it’s dated and it’s not what current research says. See the above section here for related discussion. Hobomok (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a settled issue. Historians have repeatedly pointed out to cases where Europeans simply had peaceful contacts, or were defeated in battle, by indigenous populations, and returned a few decades later to see that they had completely vanished (Orellana's expedition up the Amazon River for example). If one third of Europeans died in a few years in the black death, why wouldn't that happen reppeatedly and with an even larger force in the Americas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 09:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Relating an account from a historical figure (which could have taken place due to any number of variables) and then posing a hypothetical you’ve just thought up doesn’t make a strong case for your argument. The current scholarly sources say what they say, and the page reflects them. Hobomok (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * also, just as a note, I’d say this section has MUCH fewer problems than something like “Displacement and Disruption,” which only says “ The populations of many Native American peoples were reduced by the common practice of intermarrying with Europeans.[71] Although many Indian cultures that once thrived are extinct today, their descendants exist today in some of the bloodlines of the current inhabitants of the Americas.” This is… problematic.
 * Why come into this page out of nowhere and take umbrage with the depopulation from disease section’s focus on current scholarly literature when this section exists? Hobomok (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're insinuating here but I'll focus on whatever section I see fit. Nettless (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not insinuating anything besides that we can improve this article markedly by focusing on much weaker sections rather than focusing on sections that already reflect scholarly consensus and have already been the subject of discussion above. No need to be combative. Hobomok (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting sources and falsely claiming there is some sort of scholarly consensus. I read both Ostler and Resendez. You claim there is scholarly consensus which includes Ostler, however Ostler explicitly argues against this and essentially states his position is actually against the current majority scholarly viewpoint. Ostler even says in the book "Since 1992, the argument for a total, relentless, and pervasive genocide in the Americas has become accepted in some areas of Indigenous studies and genocide studies. For the most part, however, this argument has had little impact on mainstream scholarship in U.S. history or American Indian history. Scholars are more inclined than they once were to gesture to particular actions, events, impulses, and effects as genocidal, but genocide has not become a key concept in scholarship in these fields." Ostler further states "A recent development in the American genocide debate centers on the question of whether ethnic cleansing is a more apt term than genocide. In Ethnic Cleansing: The Crime That Should Haunt America (2014), Gary Anderson surveys the entirety of U.S. history including its colonial antecedents and argues that the crime of ethnic cleansing best characterizes this history. Anderson also insists that genocide does not apply to any of the history since “policies of mass murder on a scale similar to events in central Europe, Cambodia, or Rwanda were never implemented.” Benjamin Madley, author of An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe (2016), has rebutted Anderson by arguing that a sustained genocide occurred in at least one place in the United States: California during the Gold Rush from the early 1850s into the 1870s. Because the case for genocide in California is particularly strong, this latest wrinkle in the debate could conceivably be resolved by an agreement that Madley is right about California but that Anderson is right about the rest of U.S. history. Given the history of the American genocide debate, however, it is doubtful that a consensus will emerge. It is safe to predict that the debate will continue."  Andres Resendez on the other hand doesn't argue that forced labour and slavery were a main cause of depopulation in the entire americas. Resendez only attributes forced labour as possibly the main cause regarding the Caribbean. He doesn't attribute it as a main cause in Peru, Mexico and the US. For Northern Mexico and Southern US, Redendez primarily argues slavery played a role through slave raids spreading disease further in same way trade does. Resendez's does not particularly disagree with the position of scholars like Cook regarding disease. There is no scholarly consensus according to even Ostler, but according to you, apparently there is. Nettless (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I think you're in the wrong place here. If you want to wade into the genocide debate because you read Ostler's appendix, you'll want to go somewhere else. The quote from Ostler on this page is related to colonial violence (in its myriad forms) allowing disease to proliferate more easily. Resendez doesn't discuss colonial violence broadly, but rather slavery and everything that goes along with it, and argues that the structure allowed disease to spread more easily, which is almost exactly what you outline in your rundown of his book above. I'm not sure if you intended to agree with the text from Resendez on the page, but I'm fairly sure you just did.
 * Other scholars that agree with Resendez and Ostler on colonial violence (slavery, physical violence, sexual violence, removal, etc.) setting the stage for disease to spread include sociologist Dorceta Taylor in 2016's The Rise of the American Conservation Movement: Power, Privilege, and Environmental Protection, and genome scientists Brendan O'Fallon and Lars Fehren-Schmitz, among others. Current scholarship states that colonial violence created conditions for disease to flourish among Native peoples. This is clear. This is what the sources say. This is what should be represented on the page.
 * I still don't understand why we're arguing about a pretty cut-and-dry section when multiple sections on this page need major work, or why, on a page that needs major work, this one seemed to be the one area that was keyed in on. Very strange to me.--Hobomok (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A note: Now I do understand why Nettless was obsessed with arguing about this section: they were a sockpuppet of a user who frequently has these arguments and pushes anti-Indigenous points.--Hobomok (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Appears unconfirmed. The points made are still logical, the selective inclusion of some of Ostler's works is not warranted, I have added additional information to the page based on the assessment of the consensus in the literature by Ostler.  PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Ostler's assessment of topical literature should be included
A recent user has been vandalizing edits on the subject of American history and genocide scholarship and edited the page to remove a directly relevant quote in Jeffery Ostler's 2019 work "Surviving Genocide: Native Nations and the United States" summarizing the topical literature on the subject and the dominant since 1992.

''See: Ostler, Jeffrey (2019). S from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas. Yale University Press. pp. 11–17, 381. ISBN 9780300245264 .''

'' Since 1992, the argument for a total, relentless, and pervasive genocide in the Americas has become accepted in some areas of Indigenous studies and genocide studies. For the most part, however, this argument has had little impact on mainstream scholarship in U.S. history or American Indian history. Scholars are more inclined than they once were to gesture to particular actions, events, impulses, and effects as genocidal, but genocide has not become a key concept in scholarship in these fields. ''

Given that the citation is used as evidence of scholars who characterize it as genocide, the only content of the article where Ostler makes an assessment of the relevant topical literature (since 1992!) should be included to describe the assessments of the field. Furthermore, if you are editing citations, please see that multiple sources are provided (Anderson, Grenke, etc). So (a) please provide valid reasoning and (b) edit only the relevant citation.

I do also think the page should get a protection status. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 * I reverted you misquoting Ostler. Someone else already explained this above in response to a sock puppet who tried to add this misquotation. You commented there defending the sockpuppet’s bad-faith points after you appeared here to go ahead and re-add a quote that a bad-faith sockpuppet insisted upon adding. I’m removing your edits (and those from the previous sockpuppet) which misquote a book where a scholar argues that genocide occurred in these instances. I’m doing this because unfortunately the person who used to deal with this kind of ridiculous editing and misquoting has retired.
 * One final point: I’m not sure what you mean about me removing other sources. I didn’t remove Anderson. The Grenke source you keep linking to is not the book itself. It is actually a review of Grenke’s book, and the reviewer eviscerates Grenke’s claims.
 * So, number one: if you’re going to cite Grenke, cite the book itself.
 * Number two: the book shouldn’t even be cited because scholars in Grenke’s field feel it’s not a good book. —GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ostler is not misquoted. Even if Ostler agreed that genocide occurred in some circumstances as per his definition and opinion, he still made an assessment of the relevant topical literature on the subject which is useful to readers. Please do not edit-war, provide valid reasons for removal.
 * So far your reasons are not valid because:
 * Ostler is directly quoted, not misquoted. Ostler is already cited earlier and later in the paper as a scholar who is of the opinion that the word 'genocide' should be used to describe the population decline due to an unquantified interplay between intergroup conflict and displacement, and disease. Ostler's assessment of the scholarship on the matter is used to provide a description of the mainstream scholarship. Ostler is in no way being represented as not being one of the scholars that make the affirmative claim.
 * The alleged "sock-puppet" who discussed the matter earlier is irrelevant. He simply mentioned a quote from an already-cited author that I think allows readers to better gauge the field's history and trajectory. However, that user never added this quotation from Ostler's work, which I think is useful as it is the only citation I have identified on this page that makes an assessment of the topical literature on the subject.
 * Several other users above such as Knoterification have shared the complexity and variability of the literature on the subject, including within the works of those that make the affirmative claim. As such, it is very useful to have a representation of the topical literature.
 * If you have any alternative assessments of topical literature made by other scholars, I implore you to share them.
 * Scholars who disagree with mainstream opinions can still assess the mainstream opinion. In fact it lends more credibility to their assessment as they favour another perspective yet still acknowledge that another perspective may be mainstream.
 *  "I’m not sure what you mean about me removing other sources. I didn’t remove Anderson."
 * You reverted the entire edit instead of just Ostler, which we should discuss here first. And yes the automatic citation got the Genke citation inaccurate. I will correct that.
 *  "Eviscerates"  is just your personal opinion.
 *  "the book shouldn’t even be cited because scholars in Grenke’s field feel it’s not a good book"
 * Yet, scholars such as Anderson did. I can name many scholars with different perspectives and I so I think you should name the scholars you refer to. The point of wikipedia is not a popularity contest, it is to summarize information with as much neutrality as possible. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop lobbing false accusations. I reverted you once for adding an out of context quote and a book that has been reviewed poorly. Now I'm here after you re-added it. That’s not edit warring.
 * 1. Ostler is quoted out of context. He describes the previous history of the field. He (and others quoted on the page) show that the current consensus among scholars, aside from Clayton Anderson, is that this constitutes genocide. Clayton Anderson is the only reputable scholar in well-received books that currently argues against genocide (in favor of “ethnic cleansing”). I have no idea what you mean by “unquantified.”
 * 2. I have to wonder if you’ve read Ostler or you’re just directly taking the above sock puppet’s quote and putting it on the page, because that quote is out of context, and if you read Ostler you’d know this. Directly after Ostler makes a clear case for the majority of contemporary scholarship arguing for a genocide designation and against past scholarship he defines. You’re quoting from only one part of his point (past consensus against the genocide designation) and leaving the second part out (contemporary consensus in favor of genocide designation). Therefore, the quote you and this sock puppet want to add is out of context. Either you haven’t read Ostler and you’re taking this quote from the sock, or you’ve read Ostler and you know the quote is out of context but you’re arguing for its inclusion in bad faith. Either way, this is suspect addition and editing. Also, yes, Nettless is a sock puppet, and that sock master is known for making anti-Indigenous edits all over Wikipedia. There’s nothing “alleged” about it.
 * 3. The user you’re tagging (now you’re canvassing here in addition to edit warring at settler colonialism) was arguing in favor of disease as the major driver of depopulation. Ostler also argues against that and has contemporary citations to show for it, as does the page.
 * Ostler is arguing current mainstream scholarly thought, but before he does that he showed what scholarly thought was in the past. He does this so that readers know the history of the field and the past debates he’s wading into. That doesn’t mean the quote you’ve cherry-picked represents contemporary thought in “mainstream scholarship.” That means it was accepted in the past, but according to Ostler and those he cites, it isn’t any longer. Aside from Clayton Anderson, you’re adding old, out of date scholarship to the page by quoting Ostler out of context.
 * Finally, the idea that Grenke’s book was eviscerated in the review you cite is not what I think. That book is received a really, really bad review. Have you read that review that you cited from Stephen Feinstein in the Canadian Journal of History about Grenke’s book (that’s not even from a University Press)? Go read that review of Grenke’s book and then try to come back and tell me we should cite that book. There is no way that book should be included anywhere as representative of anything after a review like that in a peer reviewed journal. That’s the kind of review that stops people from getting a job.—GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit warring includes going through a user's history to find any edits remotely related to.
 * 1. Ostler is not quoted out of context. I am quoting his description of the previous history of the field until the time of the writing of the work because that is a respectable assessment of the topical literature on the subject.
 * "Directly after Ostler makes a clear case for the majority of contemporary scholarship arguing for a genocide designation and against past scholarship he define" —GeraldineSeinfeld
 * 2. It is telling that you accuse me of not reading a work and continuing character attacks, yet think he made such an argument after without even quoting him (qoute him). However, it is clear that Ostler does not do this because this quote is from his appendix. Ostler's work makes no other assessments on the current topical literature on the subject or that the "majority of contemporary scholarship" argues for the 'genocide destination." It is his appendices that consider genocide in U.S. history and give population estimates by nation for the period covered by the book. In these appendices he states that, and I quote directly:
 *  Scholars are more inclined than they once were to gesture to particular actions, events, impulses, and effects as genocidal, but genocide has not become a key concept in scholarship in these fields" — Jeffery Ostler, Page 384
 * That is an assessment of the current topical literature on the subject. He does not say 'since 1992 and until now.' He says "since 1992" and then says  genocide has not become a key concept in scholarship in these fields."  Evidently, in ordinary language has not become" means at the time of writing it has not become as such, which is correct if we review mainstream journals on American history, conflict and genocide studies.
 * "The user you’re tagging (now you’re canvassing here in addition to edit warring at settler colonialism) was arguing in favor of disease as the major driver of depopulation. Ostler also argues against that and has contemporary citations to show for it, as does the page." —GeraldineSeinfeld
 * 3. Mentioning a user directly relevant to discussions on this page regarding Ostler is not canvassing, especially when you have made personal attacks and accused providing proportional representation of dominant viewpoint of being fringe. I accidentally reverted an edit on that page twice and I have apologized to a moderator. This does not excuse your own vandalism. Furthermore, Ostler does not actually argue against that. I will actually quote him:
 * "Scholarship on disease and Native Americans frequently emphasizes the horrific impacts of major epidemics. These diseases hit some nations in the zone of removal, although they never engulfed the entire region" — Jeffery Ostler, Page 347
 * He admits that disease was the central factor, but in his perspective it constitutes 'genocide' as across hundreds of years and millions of interactions, he believes conflict and resource competition created a complex interplay of factors which worsened exposure and lethality of disease. Now this is generally accepted in old and contemporary scholarship, however, according to Ostler, most scholars do not consider it 'genocide.' Ostler explains that he believes the disruption of conflict, competition and stress constitutes genocide because:
 * "Disrupted communities are less capable of providing compassion and care" —  Jeffery Ostler, Page 34
 * Other scholars such as Anderson, Basso, etc have made the point that if that was the case, then logically it should apply to the 'Old World' where disease is estimated to have killed tens of millions, and where, across hundreds of years, we can also identify thousands of instances of conflict, war, and even enslavement. No respectable scholar says disease is not a major factor. Not even Ostler. Diseases were indeed central, and as this page says, "some" scholars in settler-colonial studies believe that the disease exposure was uniformly attributable to phenomena such as conflict with other populations (which resulted in displacement, resource competition, etc).
 * 4. As Ostler admits, there is no evidence this is a mainstream view outside of niche fields such as settler-colonial studies and indigenous studies, fields which generally operate on a set of assumptions which has a selective effect that draws individuals with certain perspectives to them. And this is correct if we review mainstream journals on American history, conflict and genocide studies. For instance, we do see some developments that theorize displacement atrocities as a distinguishable crime from genocide, but outside of settler colonial studies and indigenous studies, we have not seen as Ostler says genocide become a  key concept in scholarship in these fields.
 * See: Basso, A. R. (2016). Towards a theory of displacement atrocities: The Cherokee trail of tears, the herero genocide, and the pontic greek genocide. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 10(1), 5
 * Review of Genke.png
 * 5. You are just sharing your personal opinion. Stephen Feinstein's review is no way an "evisceration" or something that "stops people from getting a job" Arthur Grenke has a PhD in History and Sociology, and remains a respectable scholar.
 * Anderson's work likewise has positive reviews.
 * See: Carroll P. Kakel III (2016) Ethnic cleansing and the Indian: the crime that should haunt America; Native America and the question of genocide, Settler Colonial Studies, 6:1, 99-105, DOI: 10.1080/2201473X.2015.1015929
 * Wikipedia demands reasoning and neutrality. You need to provide a justification beyond calling a critical review that still admits the sections on the declines of pre-Columbian American populations were "well-written," as being a "really, really bad review." PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Does someone watching this page want to take over on this? I'm not going around and around about Ostler with someone whose main goal over the last week has been questioning settler colonial studies and quoting studies out of context here and elsewhere to favor their own ideas about history. I'm also not going down the disease rabbit hole when it's been done over and over again on this page. I've got better ways to spend my time.--GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If there’s no other commentary on this besides going around and around about quoting Ostler out of context and quoting a book (Grenke) after it got terrible reviews, I’m going to go ahead and restore the previous version soon.—GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Geraldine, I understand you are going through my edits from land-use to gun-control pages, and from the justifications you have given, I have no choice but to conclude that this is POV-pushing. As I comprehensively went over your arguments, providing multiple scholarly sources and review articles (to show that a single review article that is mildly critical of Genke is not "terrible reviews" but one mixed review), I suggest you request administrator attention as I have quite clearly demonstrated the quotes from Ostler are not out of context, but are *the direct verbatim context.* PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve not touched any articles you’ve edited about gun control, nor did I know you edited those articles.
 * If you think that review of Grenke is “mildly critical” I’m not sure what to tell you. I’ll also point out that “New Academia Publishing LLC” isn’t even a University Press, and doesn’t measure up to many of the other books or peer-reviewed sources cited on this page. The source doesn’t past muster.
 * I’m done going round and round about Ostler with you. I’ll post a request for comment regarding your out-of-context quote and the Grenke source. I’ll also make mention that you’ve got a history of quoting sources out of context, like you did over at Native American Use of Fire in Ecosystems, specifically regarding Brunelle et al. which I see you’ve stopped responding to. GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The ideas of genocide are biased and do not represent mainstream scholarship generally. Neither does the current information about colonialism working with disease to depopulate. It is biased and partisan especially the work from Whitaker. I’m going to remove it for now. If someone has issue with it it should be discussed here.—FloopyNoopers (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 * I would recommend against that approach. If you've asked for comments and consensus, it wouldn't make sense to remove and THEN seek consensus. CMacMillan (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well those who are deleting my revisions should at least be writing here instead of deleting. They are not. That’s against policy. FloopyNoopers (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian population of NA less than pre-Famine Ireland?
Is there a theory as to why that would have been? There seems to have been a fair amount of natural resources and supposedly that is the way humans came to the Americas.108.28.226.250 (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Technology. The Irish at the time were farmers. Most of the population of North America at the time were hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherer societies are far less efficient at the use of land and therefore a set area of land can sustain a much smaller population of hunter-gatherers than of farmers. 46.172.251.166 (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Put it in chronological perspective. Ireland's population in 1500 was 750,000; North American Indian population that same year was probably about 3.4 million. Most of the land of Ireland is suitable for agriculture; far less than one-half of the land in North America is suitable for agriculture. Moreover, unlike Ireland, North America lacked domestic animals such as horses and cattle, thus further reducing the amount of land that was productive for food. Good agricultural land in North America was heavily populated, possibly more heavily populated than Old War farmland. Maize was a more productive crop that the Old World wheat and barley. Smallchief (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"Exploration", "expedition", etc.
The extensive usage of such terms (rather than the more accurate "military operation / invasion / COLONIZATION") across most wiki articles dealing with anything from their entirety to only a sentence about western colonial actions in the "America's" (also a european term/concept, like 'Asia' or 'Africa') and other parts of the world should be corrected at the least for it in some cases sounds really as farcical as putin calling his Ukraine war as a "special military operation" (of course the Ukraine war has nothing to do with colonization, I KNOW but still...)

Look u wikiites may rightly/wrongly see this as confusing opinionated ("NOTAFORUM")/OR text (and for that very possibility I'll ofc not insist to have this on the article already) but atleast it will hopefully provide some thought provoking debate on including sources/text for this widely held perspective across WP articles

So, a humble suggestion - pls atleast don't remove this from the talk pages on NOTFORUM grounds or something, these places are meant for such suggestions to improve the article 2402:E280:3D1D:5B0:A931:9CB8:4420:455 (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Title is misleading based on article
I came to this article expecting to learn about demographics, migrations, technologies, and wars that explain indigenous population changes over time. However, this article is exclusively focused on how contact with Europeans beginning in 1492 caused the population to decline thereafter. Even if we assume European colonization caused 100% of the population decline starting in 1492 (which doesn't make sense given the timeline of colonization and scale, spread, and diversity of indigenous populations), there should still be hundreds of years of population history before then to explore without any mention of Europeans.

I recommend either changing the title of the article to reflect its current contents; for example, "Population decline of indigenous American peoples during European Colonization;" or, this article should be completely rewritten to include the rich history of these populations before contact with Europeans. Matthew Cho (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


text: User talk:195.1.30.137

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:195.1.30.137


text:
User talk:Cormaggio

Hi there..

Archive 1 Dec 2004-Sept 2005

Russborough House
Nice article! - there's lot more nice Irish houses that could do with a few words. Giano | talk 18:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not that quick - you made a link at Richard Cassels, which is one of mine so I spotted that first. Seriously though there are hundreds of Irish landmarks, particularly country houses whose architecture is completely ignored, I'd do them myself, but the Italian ones currently have my priority, can't think why really, must be the weather. Giano | talk 18:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Mind Benders
Done- I've removed you from the bot's list. If you wish to be re-added, just let me know; future messages will be one line only, and the bottom notice will also be cut. In addition, you may wish to add the Announcement Board page at WP:MIND onto your watchlist if you are still interested in Mind Benders. Thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Notification Bot
Sorry about that. --AllyUnion (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Call for Papers from the Chaos Computer Club
Hi, I'm Henriette from german Wikipedia and I found your name on meta. Do you like to participate in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Communication_Congress 22. Chaos Communication Congress]? The Call for Papers is here. --62.220.20.108 21:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC) my user-Page

Hi :) I asked WiseWoman if she knows some people doing Wikipedia-Research. And she gave me the link of the meta-site ;) --62.220.20.108 22:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC) (Henriette)

Online meeting this evening
I may be a bit late for the meeting this evening, and I may have to leave early - I'm on call for work. -- Francs2000 11:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah I found the bylaws page but haven't done much with it because work has been manic this week. Sorry. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 11:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Manchester vote
I noticed your comments on the City of Manchester page. Please vote about the Manchester - City of Manchester situation at Talk:City of Manchester. G-Man 21:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Irish Republic template
A user is trying to have the Template:Irish Republic infobox deleted. Your comments would be welcome. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Quartic messages
Dear Cormac,

Nice wikimania photo on your userpage! If you can lend a hand with the Quarto next week, that would be grand. In particular, a little report on recent Wikiversity discussions, and some help with the Wikimania writeup, would be super; but there's also random photoshop and image work and interviewing to be done. In fact, if you're still interested in interviewing Sunir... there may be more things to talk to him about now that he's done with Wikisym :) +sj +  11:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As for transmogrification; I can't see how that would improve the speed and level of communication across the projects. Better to have more and more frequent reports, which any enthusiastic editor can get involved with; not fewer reports on restricted-access wikis.  Which is not to say that sprucing up the WMF site isn't a good idea -- I think the two efforts will complement one another.  +sj +  19:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You've got it; the draft page is the best place to link out to an essay. +sj + 18:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK
You have expressed an interest in Wikimedia UK. Just to let you know I've posted a draft Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of the proposed "Wikimedia UK" charitable company on Wikimedia UK/Memorandum of Association and Wikimedia UK/Articles of Association. It is proposed that these will receive initial approval by interested parties at a meeting on 27 November. I will put together a brief agenda for the more formal aspects of that meeting soon. Memo and Arts of Association are a company's constitution, and need to be agreed before the company is formed (though they can be changed at a later date). Please feel free to comment on the relevant talk pages (I'd rather the proposed drafts are left unedited so that it is easy to see what is going on) - particularly if there is something there that you would disagree with at the meeting, details of which can be found on the Wikimedia UK page on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Kind regards, jguk 19:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

re: IRC meeting reformat
Yes it was me, don't worry though, I didn't do it manually (that would have taken ages, just a couple of quick regular expressions did the trick)

Basicly I only did it because with preformated text any long lines don't wrap leading to horizontal scroll (my screen has a paltry maximum resolution of 1024x768), so I figured if I made it into a table (and therefore leaving the structure) it would be easier for me to read. And since I had found it useful I figured others may too.

Annoying thing is I installed Chatzilla specifically for this, set an alarm on my computer to remind me to log in and join the discussion and then I forgot and went out anyway. I am so crap ;) Mr Weeble  Talk Brit tv 20:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I'm not expecting to be online as much over the next few days so...

-- Francs2000 09:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK
David, I noticed that you have not yet commented on the mailing list or Meta page about whether you want to come to the next meeting, and if so when you would be able to make it. There is a signup sheet at Wikimedia UK which it would be great if you could add your signature to sooner rather than later so we can get things moving. Thryduulf 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about calling you David. I sent the message to David first and just copied it, forgetting that I'd started it with "David" - I'll go correct the others now... Thryduulf 22:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

prject invite
Hi Cormaggio, I'm messaging you because I see that you are in WikiProject Community, and so might have interest and expertise to lend to this small project: WikiProject Fast OrgDev Advisory on Userpages, which will write advisory document in support of the new Proposed policy on userboxes. Herostratus 07:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Marriage
We had a ceremony way back in 2002 in a stone circle in Oxfordshire, and in our eyes we've been married since then, if not by law. We haven't done the legal ceremony yet, partly because there's no rush - we have wills and statutory declarations - partly because we just can't afford to have it done. So in the meantime we're "living in sin" in the eyes of the majority world, but as married as is possible in ours. -- Francs2000 21:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Come live in Tory backwater - you soon get to learn that "these days" only exists in the cities! Are you going to the meetup in London tomorrow by the way? -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 22:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dylan
Thanks for the correction. I was writing the lyric from memory and I must have mentally merged "hear" and "her" and didn't read it back right.

I don't know that the song was ever on an album until it appeared on "Greatest Hits vol. 2." Back in the olde days it was not uncommon for an artist's work to appear on a single only, esp. if it was a B-side. I kind of stopped following Dylan's new albums after "John Wesley Hardin."

"Tomorrow is a Long Time" is special IMO, in that it is one of Dylab's few love ballads untainted by sarcasm, bitterness, or good old fashioned youth arrogance. It is one of the few times he comes up to the level of some of Leonard Cohen's. In my rarely humble opinjon, of course. Thank for the writing! Cheers, Cecropia 23:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, I get it. "Through A Bullet of Light," is a bootleg (or maybe an "offical bootleg" of early recording sessions. But it must be a fairly recent release. Dylan's first release was the album "Bob Dylan" released in (IIRC) 1963 by Columbia, which was a big deal, since they were almost exclusively a classical label. Then the first major album (IMHO) was the next, "Freewheelin'".

 * Dylan's focus changed with just about every album, and people marked the changes by when they gave up on him. I pretty much gave up after Blonde on Blonde. -- Cecropia 02:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: You're grammars' terrible
First of all, I have to say that I love the title. Secondly, I would not consider the last comma before 'and' incorrect at all; it is the serial comma, which most North American language authorities recommend, as well as quite a few in Britain, such as the OUP. It is not often seen in newspapers, but apparently, this is to save space. I have always used it, not because some stuffy so-and-so in an office in Oxon or New Hampshire thinks that it is a good idea, but because I think that it eliminates more confusion than it creates, and also because I think that the lack of comma before 'and' is rather clunky, personally, and does not reflect my speech pattern at all.

I love MTV makes me want to smoke crack too. Do you like much of Beck? It was one of the first copies of it that made me a lifelong devotee to Beck; it's such dexterous social commentary, but when Beck does that, he keeps it subtle, rather than throwing his woes, patronisingly, down the throat of the listener. It is a shame that it is so comparatively rare, although, saying that, my favourite Beck songs are live one-offs. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 19:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProjects
Thanks for the heads-up on education WikiProjects (1 and 2). About two years ago I went to Science education and had a bad experience. I guess I should get my courage up and make another attempt to work on that page. --JWSchmidt 00:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Schon/Schön
I'm not convinced that he usually gets the German-style spelling (see for example this page, where Schön is in the background). But importantly, the history now at Donald Schön suggests you copied-and-pasted, rather than moving the page. This very obviously destroys the page history. It's against good practice. Charles Matthews 17:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Fixed. Don't ever do this (cut and paste moves) again, please. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 14:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, thanks for doing this, but I've already learnt my lesson and eaten humble pie. There's a nice way of saying this (see above your comment) and a not so nice way (your comment). Cormaggio @ 17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry, it's my standard message. It's just meant to make it absolutely clear that cut-and-paste moves are one of the most horrid things to happen in a GFDL environment, AFAIK. And how's a factual statement, accompanied by "please", not so nice? shrugs — Nightst a  llion  (?) 18:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, saying "Don't ever do something" is pretty much an authoritative order in my book, regardless of whether there's a please (which just looks tagged on). Saying "please don't do something" is better; explaining why that something is wrong is much better. I think I made it clear I knew I did something wrong, so that's why I got irritated. But no biggy. Cormaggio @ 20:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Mh, okay, in retrospect I can agree that it was phrased unnecessarily despotic. My apologies. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 22:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that's cool. My apologies too. Cormaggio @ 22:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wikimania_party.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Wikimania_party.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 08:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I've emailed her now to get clarification. Cormaggio @ 12:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Templates, templates, templates?
Continued from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education

The editor in question is Rfrisbie (contr.). I don't want to criticize his efforts, or discourage his contribution in any way. All of his work certainly looks well-intended and some of it is quality, constructive content. But much of it involves building and distributing templates, working on the Portal:Education, and creating new categories (adding to the already overwhelming and chaotic list of education-related categories which needs, in my opinion, to be completely overhauled and trimmed way down before even more random categories are added). Again, I love the fact that we have such an enthusiastic new editor--so I don't want to sound too aggressive and offend him, but we need to get everyone involved in the team aspect of the project. Maybe I'm wrong--what do you think? Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 22:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Cormaggio, thanks for leaving the note. I have been getting the notes, and am a passive listener for now, as I'm in the middle of a move to Beijing (!) so I hope I plan to make it online for the Sunday meeting, for now. Cheers. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No, don't mention whales until AFTER the wedding dress
Girls always get sensitive about comparisons to whales before buying a wedding dress :P Kidding. Thanks for your well wishes Cormaggio! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Haha! Nice one. Also nice that the first thing you mention on your user page is my study you participated in all those wikimoons ago... Cormaggio @ 13:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Version 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"
Hi, I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 19:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your note. That was thoughtful. I understand we all have multiple demands on our time. :) Maurreen 16:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

WP 1.0
I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia-CD/Download & 2006 WP CD Selection. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. --BozMo talk 09:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wha?
Why did it get removed? It's an original source I though. Ah well, definitely tell me where it is when it gets there :-) Ta bu shi da yu 14:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!
I took on one of the requested articles today to introduce myself to the project. I hope to do things in here with some regularity. Best, Kuki ni  23:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Wikisource Links!
Thanks for adding Wikisource links to the Blind Men and an Elephant article I did. I didn't even think about doing that! I know you're a major Wikipedian, and it's cool that you'd help a Wikipedia newby! Binky The WonderSkull 04:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: General User Survey
I don't know Perl, but I am grad student in sociology and know some theory about surveys. Looking at what we have now I think we are really, really close. The questions are almost done, assuming we accept my corrections there are ready. The only two things that needs to be done is 1) work out how the questionnaire will look to the end user and how the answers will be recorded (simple way is to have a subst:template that each respondent would copy, save, fill, and save; more ambitious one is something with scripts and buttons) and 2) figure out how to advertise the thing on Wikipedia (and hopefully other projects). Translation would be nice, very nice even, but I am not sure if any script will do, machine translation sucks for anything complicated. Still, we may get some volunteers: I can translate the survey into Polish, and since it is basically Likert scale, we don't need much to worry about translating user's comments back to English. PS. Yes, I will be at Wikimania, looking forward to seeing you :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If we can get somebody to write the nice script with buttons, fine, but if not, I think the most important thing is 'to get this show on the road' rather then dwell on bells and whistles; I think with clear instructions using a subst template is easy, and after all we will be addressing people who already know some basics of wiki. In instructions, either on every project or visible on meta, we tell people to copy subst part and go to a specific wiki (meta). There they create a subpage, just as they would do during a FAC or PR process, with the title being a number of survey. On that subpage they paste the subst template, and click save. Survey appears. They edit it, fill it out, save again, and presto! - we are done. In addition, we can caution them before they start editing that if they want to be anonomius they should be logged out of wiki they are editing. If you think it's a sound idea, I can have a draft version if it ready on meta soon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sure I participated in your study? I don't recall it :( Your MT looks interesting. Do you intend to publish it? Are you still working on similar issues, perhaps for PhD? I myself am now working on MT with will look at Wikipedia (WP:V policy development) as a case study in the growth of bureaucracy and evolution of decision making (I will be relying on Iron Law of Oligarchy theory, I think), as a preparation for a PhD about Wiki (I am not entirely sure what it would be about, but it would likely involve some coparisons between Wiki and some other organizations). I am also working on 'Wikipedia as a teaching tool' article (and I will have a presentation on this at Wikimania). If you are in any teaching position, I would stronly recommend you try to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool and convince as many of your peers as you can that this is a good idea :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's masters, and my second to :) There are few people working on studying Wikipedia. Wikidemia doesn't seem to active, at least judging by amounts of edits and virtual lack of replies to msgs posted at talk :( It's a shame, I think we should really try to revitalize this page. The Wikiversity/Modified project proposal would be better if it clearly stated what the proposed changes are. Btw, I have done some edits to the GSU/Q yesterday.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can send you my current draft of MT proposal if you want.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a nice Wikimania
Hi there! Just to let you know that due to my thesis writing and my unwillingness to enter the U.S. territory, I will not attend Wikimania this year. If you are, I wish you the best of times; you are amongst the people I was most looking forward to seeing again. See you next year maybe! Sam Hocevar 11:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Location maps
Hey mate, just letting you know I replied to your message on my talkpage --Dom0803 22:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * That sounds excellent mate. Let me know once you get it going in full swing. --Dom0803 16:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

 * If you think I could teach well, just let me know whenever you need me, man. More than happy to give a helping hand :) --Dom0803 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that Wikiversity is setup and running. I was wondering perhaps you would like a Locator map page explaining the locator map, how it works, and ultimatley how to create and use one? --Dom0803 16:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Board Qs
Answered. --Improv 12:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Board candidate questions
Hi Nicholas, I'm glad to see you're running for the current board elections. I have some questions that I think would be good to know - please answer (or ignore) them as you see fit. Thanks. Cormaggio @ 11:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Cormaggio: Thank you for your pertinent, and very interesting, set of questions; below, please find my answers, which I hope might provide a clearer profile of myself as a Board candidate to you. If there are any points in what I have written that you feel could benefit from further clarification, or should you have any further questions for me, please do not hesitate to let me know. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * 1) What do you do in real life TM ?
 * Real life? You mean that actually exists? :)
 * Joking aside, I do all sorts of things. In terms of my career, my work is mainly related to IT; I work as a freelance project manager and management consultant, mainly in solving management problems relating to systems development and team management. I also do the odd spot of systems development myself, as I actually very much enjoy coding, and occasionally I also do systems analysis work. I am in the process of starting a new management consultancy business at present with a colleague of mine. Professional work aside, I am a classical pianist and harpsichordist; I also compose the odd piece of music as a matter of interest. Academically, I am a Computing student, and will be studying Computing with Artificial Intelligence at the University of Sussex in this coming academic year.
 * 1) What personal/professional experience would you bring to the board, if elected?
 * A large proportion of my professional work is basically acting as an intermediary between what would be ideal in running projects, and what is actually practical - and, probably most importantly, working out methods of achieving the best possible outcome despite resource constraints and the inevitable calamities that happen along the way. The other crucial part of it is dealing with people; managing strengths and weaknesses, sorting out disputes, providing a gentle hand of assistance where necessary, and also occasionally carrying out the somewhat less gentle task of either rehabilitating or removing team members who are not pulling their weight.
 * A lot of what I have learned in project management applies, I think, very well to a larger focus of a project-focused organisation like Wikimedia as well - my experience in dealing with variables affecting a project, and using them to produce solutions, is the essence of what I would like to achieve as a Wikimedia board member. It is these elements, I think, that the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole would benefit from improvement in, and it is this expertise I would, to the best of my abilities, bring to the Board.
 * 1) What do you see as the role of a board member?
 * In a volunteer-dependent organisation such as the Wikimedia Foundation, I believe the duties of a board member are three-fold: 1) to provide an interface to the outside corporate world for the volunteer communities, and the handling of organisational issues, enabling Wikimedia projects to operate and ensure its operational needs are met; 2) to tabulate, analyse and remedy issues affecting the communities of Wikimedia projects, by gathering, developing and implementing solutions to those issues; and finally, 3) act as a guardian of the Foundations's focus and interests, and provide strategic leadership to the volunteer projects, taking responsibility for the Foundation's activities.
 * 1) Do you have any personal aspirations you would like to pursue through a tenure on the board?
 * It has always been my primary mission in life to make a difference wherever I can in the world, and I believe the Wikimedia Foundation does exactly that - by providing free, comprehensive information on a diverse range of subjects to the world. Thus, I feel that by assisting the Foundation as a Board member, I shall be able to work towards the goal of summarising the world's information into an excellent series of educational resources, for both those privileged enough to have Internet access and also in print form for those who do not, in developing countries. My aspiration is, thus, to contribute my management expertise to the Foundation, participating in ensuring its long-term success and satisfaction of goals; and at a finer degree of working focus, to make a difference to the Foundation projects and those who contribute to them through application of what I know.

Communitas!
Hi Cormaggio. Thanks very much for your interest and participation in the Communitas project. I've created a spot for your spin on the whole thing in our new Embedded Communitas! workspace at Wikipedia. (shhhh - don't tell anyone about it ;) Your space has a main section and one subsection. Just go to town with it if you want to. Make a whole section for Wikiversity if you want to, but scroll down and note that I have seeded some interest areas that are very Wikipedia-centric, which is how we must be in this workspace.

Take a look also at the little "learning objects" that Surf and I have come up with. Ain't they kewl? Two more things — Our COTM is the Virtual community article (it's a bit of a mess) and the Fasttrack to sources subproject. • CQ 01:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the sushi!
...and for your kind words about the Toshio Iwai article, Cormac - I've been really into his work since seeing Resonance of 4 at the Barbican in '97. I noticed last week that his page was pretty minimal, and realized that a wealth of info about him had appeared on the web since I last Googled him 18 months ago, so I couldn't stop myself from making my first major contribution! Thanks for the raw fish - I've got pretty much all my favorite types there! Just need a nice pint of Sapporo, now... :-) Cheers, Rich. Rich Lem 05:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * > I saw him recently showcasing his magical musical instruments (including Tenori-on)
 * Fantastic! Were you at that Futuresonic gig with Battles and Fennesz?  And thanks for the delishus beer!!!  Rich Lem 17:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

From Conventional Classrooms to Online Workshops
Hello, my name is Adrian and I would like to contribute to the development of collaborative strategies for the integration of virtual and physical classrooms.

I think that the wikiversity could provide an interface between real life learning communities operating within regular universities and virtual spaces/communities such as those growing around the wikimedia sister projects. You seem to be the best person to point me in the right direction.

I posted this proposal a couple of weeks ago in a blog hosted by the Chronicle of Higher Education. Since then I have received some interesting feedback, and the idea is developing rather fast. Right now I would like to figure out how to promote this thing more effectively. Sorry for dumping so much text in your talk page. You can contact me directly at aldenis@ucla.edu

thanks

From Conventional Classrooms to Online Workshops

My name is Adrian Lopez Denis and I am a PhD candidate in Latin American history at UCLA. In the last two years I have been looking for ways to incorporate the open source model to collective forms of historical production. From the beginning, encouraging professional historians to contribute to the development of the wikipedia project emerged as the most obvious approach. Most professional historians are both researchers and educators. Besides conducting their own specialized studies, they are often expected to provide hundreds of undergraduate students with a relatively wider understanding of the past. Completing a history course usually requires writing research papers, journal entries, annotated bibliographies, or book reviews. Students are expected to produce a certain amount of pages that educators are supposed to read and grade. There is a great deal of redundancy and waste involved in this practice. Usually several students answer the same questions or write separately on the same topic, and the valuable time of the professionals that read these essays is wasted on a rather repetitive task.

In the process of essay writing, students use an array of resources, from the overpriced textbooks and readers they are expected to purchase to more readily available online tools like wikipedia. Some of us would perhaps push for deeper levels of inquiry involving books on reserve, open library searches, or even the occasional dive into local repositories of primary sources. In most cases, however, the entire process will be a mockery of actual research. As long as essay writing remains purely an academic exercise, or an evaluation tool, students would be learning a deep lesson in intellectual futility along with whatever other information the course itself is trying to convey. Assuming that each student is writing 10 pages for a given class, and each class has an average of 50 students, every course is in fact generating 500 pages of written material that would eventually find its way to the campus trashcans. In the meantime, the price of college textbooks is raising four times faster that the general inflation rate.

The solution to this conundrum is rather simple. Small teams of students should be the main producers of course material and every class should operate as a workshop for the collective assemblage of copyright-free instructional tools. Because each team would be working on a different problem, single copies of library materials placed on reserve could become the main source of raw information. Each assignment would generate a handful of multimedia modular units that could be used as building blocks to assemble larger teaching resources. Under this principle, each cohort of students would inherit some course material from their predecessors and contribute to it by adding new units or perfecting what is already there. Courses could evolve, expand, or even branch out. Although centered on the modular production of textbooks and anthologies, this concept could be extended to the creation of syllabi, handouts, slideshows, quizzes, webcasts, and much more. Educators would be involved in helping students to improve their writing rather than simply using the essays to gauge their individual performance. Students would be encouraged to collaborate rather than to compete, and could learn valuable lessons regarding the real nature and ultimate purpose of academic writing and scholarly research.

Online collaboration and electronic publishing of course materials would multiply the potential impact of this approach. Users outside the class, the country, or the continent could benefit from the work of the students. Course projects could be run on relatively closed websites associated to traditional scholarly institutions. The output from these sites could be periodically uploaded into larger repositories based on a more open model of intellectual collaboration along the lines of the wikipedia project. An even bolder move would be to base entire courses on the creation of actual wikipedia entries. Under this principle, the interaction between classmates and larger online communities could be immediate and continuous. Students could run a wikiportal, write a wikibook, or even be fully integrated in an electronic course within the wikiversity. Discussing the advantages, disadvantages, and larger implications of the wikimedia model of collective intellectual production could be a valuable educational experience in and on itself.

Changing our approach to in-class writing assignments could be rather significant. We could produce a huge repertoire of dynamically evolving instructional materials, created by students and for students, professionally edited and collectively reviewed, free and copylefted. It could be very difficult to convince many of our colleagues about the practicality of dumping the results of their promotion-giving, sabbatical-swallowing, and ultimately unwelcome original research into such an anarchic pool of information as wikipedia is today. It would be easier to alter our current approach to essay writing in the history class, recycling an otherwise dull operation into a socially productive and intellectually stimulating practice.Aldenis 22:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Porposal for Waldorf Project
Hello, I have proposed to make a project about Waldorf education because the page is a mess and under constant edit wars. I have proposed it as a project, but don't wish to duplicate efforts- would you prefer that we make this a sub-project of your alt ed project? I have asked this question on the alt ed project page several days ago and thought I would write individual project members since nobody has seen it. We now have 4 people who have agreed to work on the Waldorf project. Wonderactivist 13:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf project admin questions
Dear Longhair and Cormaggio, Thank you immeasurably for your help with the Waldorf project so far. As you will note below, I am planning shortly to move the project pages to within alt ed - just want to clarify structure first. It is currently at User:Wonderactivist/Waldorf Project Team Page

With your admin experience, and the amount of back-n-forth this article has undergone - actually speeding up since the proposed project - I would like your opinion on strategies to manage the project if you should have time.

I see two major issues:

1 there are "sides" within the group instead of a single focus on creating a good article. While this is somewhat to be expected, I also expected a greater level of professionalism. Is there a known strategy to begin to turn this around?

2 Unbelievably, I think,we have actually reached almost a consensus on the Introduction. I would like to focus on this positive and if possible have it become a springboard for examining just one section at a time. 3 On the current project page, a format for the article has been proposed, while the person actually rewrote the whole article, I propose taking just the OUTLINE - the section names 0- and beginnning with agreeing upon the sections.

Other than the administrative questions, my project strategy will be to set up two pages within the alt ed project:

1 to lay out a structure - outline only - for the page 2 to finalize with formal agreement, the introduction. 3 ONLY begin work on the next section when we have agreed upon the above two, then moving just one section at a time.

My hope is that it will disarm the ongoing wars over fine points and pet projects.

What is your opinion?

And thank you from the bottom of my transplanted Texas heart! Wonderactivist 04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Project has been moved
Now at WikiProject Waldorf Project Wonderactivist 04:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf Project Organization
Dear Longhair,Cormaggio, and Fergie, I know there's already been so much controversy surrounding it, but plan to proceed with the Waldorf project. Thank you all so much for your help so far.

I have organized the pages better, centering on the page Longhair set up at WikiProject Waldorf Project and have a proposal on the table for how to proceed in a very focused, organized fashion. I truly believe that this is the only way the project can progress. I would like to invite your ideas and comments on the organizational structure, and the proposals, and anything else! Wonderactivist 17:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops on Waldorf
Oops! I stand thoroughly corrected. For the Waldorf project, I have actually sought out the opinions of one admin, one unbiased Wikipedian, and one involved, yet highly experienced and demonstrated-to-be-fair Wikipedian.

Cormaggio has made an excellent point: several of the ongoing editors of the Waldorf page have chosen not to take part in this project. It may be that mediation is a better choice. I am happy to spearhead a project, but just as happy to turn it over to mediators. Considering the conflict you have witnessed in the past month, which do you recommend? Personally, I would just like for the edit wars to stop and for the page to be just a bit more stable. Wonderactivist 20:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavian activity theory
Hi colleague, just fyi: I have cut the original Activity theory in two chunks; the other one is the subj. Yasya 05:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi There
Hi, my name's Nathan from Florida.I'm lookin' for more friends on wikipedia;especialy ones with experance,as I am kinna new.Read my user page.I'm also trying to make my own site but it's not up and running yet.I have an interest in Irish history,Celtic history and basicly all things Irish.I wanna go to one of these wikimania events,or have one started in my area.Write me back on my talk page.Natthegreat 16:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Meetup
Hi, just getting in touch because you expressed an interest in the meetup here. Some people have expressed a view that they would be able to make it were the date moved from Fri 8 June to Sat 9 June. Obviously its now getting pretty close, so I thought a quick poll would be the best the way to find out the better day. If you're still interested, it would be great if you could say whether you can make either or both days here. Thanks, WjBscribe 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

University of Saskatchewan
Noticed you were a member of Wikiproject Canada - Education.... Celebrate the Centennial University of Saskatchewan Anniversary in the year 2007. Would you please go to Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and vote for this University of Saskatchewan article!!! Tell any and all other editors / U of S students you know who wiki to vote also please!!! Please help Celebrate the Anniversary of the U of S University of Saskatchewan Academics Talk Please help to bring the article to feature status !!!SriMesh | talk  03:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative education
There has been a proposal brought forward regarding a merger of WikiProject Alternative Education, and as you are member of that project, I am notifying you. Thanks. Twenty Years 13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Education merger

Thanks for your input on this merger. I have also responded to comments made by Sherurcij which included misleading information.  Diligent Terrier and friends  has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. 18:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK v2.0
Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts.

Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page.

Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed])

Wiki UK Ltd Membership applications now invited!
Hello,

It gives me great pleasure to announce that Wiki UK Limited is now inviting membership applications! You can download the application form in PDF format from meta:Image:Wiki_UK_Ltd_membership_application_form.pdf

Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.

We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.

Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.

Mike Peel (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Membership Secretary, Wiki UK Limited

P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe.

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

AfD nomination of Oscar van Dillen
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Oscar van Dillen. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Oscar van Dillen. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

FYI--I was not the one who nominated the article, but rather wanted to make sure that some more people who had worked on it were properly notified.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wikimania party.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Wikimania party.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing the license
Hi there Cormaggio:

Here is the information you asked for: This is what you typed:

Edward, Sam Hocevar and Cormaggio. Photo taken by Salvor Gissurardottir at Wikimania 2005, Frankfurt, Germany. Originally published on Flickr.

The Wikipedia photo license was cc-by-sa-2.0. If you can get the photographer to drop the -NC I am happy to restore the image.

I was surprised at the Wikimedia event I attended there were -NC presentations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!
Hi Cormaggio, I got your name from the Editorial Team participant list, and wanted to tell you that we will be testing out assessment metrics in the Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the | Public Policy Initiative. Your interests seem to align with the project and I hope you will check it out. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

UK Community Notice - IRC meeting
Dear Wikipedian,

This is the first of what will hopefully be a regular notice to help bring together the UK community so that you can be involved in some amazing things. To kick things off, there will be a UK community IRC meeting at 1800 UTC, December 7, 2010 to discuss the future growth and developement of Wikimedia UK. Without huge community support and involvement, the chapter cannot be successful and to get the most out of it, get involved.

For information on the community IRC meeting please go here

More to come about:
 * Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Events
 * 1st Annual UK Wiki-conference
 * Trustee interest meeting - an event for those community members with even just a fleeting interest in becoming trustees of Wikimedia UK.

Many Thanks
 * Joseph Seddon
 * User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 05:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

UK IRC community meeting
Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see Community_IRC_meetings

 * Many Thanks
 * Joseph Seddon

 * User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Sitenotices090508.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sitenotices090508.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England
Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in: If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!
 * Leeds on 12th April 2015
 * Manchester on 26th April 2015
 * Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cormaggio


text:
Cristiano Júnior

Cristiano Sebastião de Lima Júnior (5 June 1979 – 5 December 2004) was a Brazilian footballer who played as a forward for Dempo, before an on-field collision in India in the Federation Cup finals, with the goalkeeper of the opposing team led to his death.

Career
Júnior, who was the highest-paid footballer in India, signed up for Dempo in September 2004. He had only recently moved to Dempo on a transfer from Kolkata's East Bengal where he had formed a potent strike partnership with India's footballer Baichung Bhutia in helping his team win the league title in the 2003-2004 season and reach the knock-out stages of the 2004 AFC Cup.

Death
Júnior collided with Mohun Bagan goalkeeper Subrata Pal, in the 78th minute of the Federation Cup finals. While scoring his second goal after chasing the ball into the box, he collided with the keeper, staggered away and then collapsed. Attempts to revive him were unsuccessful. The game continued after Junior was taken off the field. He was dead on arrival at Hosmat Hospital. Hospital officials said that no doctors were requested to be at the ground during the Federation Cup match. "At no time, was the hospital requested to provide doctors, and no agreement or contract for doctors was made." Dempo won the Cup 2-0. According to the autopsy performed in the Bangalore Hospital (where Junior was moved from the stadium), the footballer died because of a heart stroke. The report also added that Júnior was not injured at the moment of the arrival to the health center.

Dempo announced that they would retire Júnior's #10 shirt. It filed a complaint of criminal negligence against Subrata Pal, Hosmat Hospital, and the Karnataka State Football Association, the local organizers. Pal was suspended for 2 months.

Individual

 * 2003-04 National Football League (India): Golden Boot (15 goals)

title: Cristiano Júnior


text:
Talk:GROB

 * Possibly a good source for expansion: . Euphoria 08:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:GROB


text:
Talk:Adhocracy

Edit needed
"The Adhocracy is clearly positioned in an environment that is both dynamic and compex, by Henry Mintzberg" does not make sense and is not a sentence. Thx, "alyosha" 06:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge?
Re: suggestion to merge to "libertarian management", I don't think this concept has anything especially to do with libertarianism, so that's not an appropriate merge. Maybe some other merge destination makes sense, or a bigger article could be constructed around this and several related concepts. Phr (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also don't agree with merging, this is an interesting topic and one that I think could have an entire article. Just because it's not fleshed out now doesn't mean it will never be. - cohesion 05:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

current wikipedia structure?
Removed this line: "To some degree, Wikipedia's management structure is an example of an adhocracy.", as possible original research, as well as self reference. Can we back this statement up? Kim Bruning 11:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Projects at least would fulfill it. People join, established some structures (guidelines, task lists, votes), work and then leave or stay as it pleases them. --Error 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Such a statement makes me wonder where original research ends and common sense begins. Forzan (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, actually we can back it up: Spek et al. 2006 . There will be a better ref once I publish a paper on that in a few months, but yes - wiki is certainly very close to adhocracy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the downsides of adhocracies?
Chaos, corruption, lack of fairness, arbitraryness, etc etc? I expect the Mafia and Somali pirates must be examples of adhocracy. These issues ought to be included in the article - currently it is one-sided. 84.13.54.183 (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I'm pretty sure that the Mafia and possibly also Somali pirates have a clearly defined hierarchy, which makes them by definition not adhocracies. But if you want to find something about the downsides, just make sure you cite your source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.11.101 (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

downside example
Personal experience indicates that small teams of highly skilled IT professionals following this model of loose organization will often fail to produce high quality output. The teams suffer from most of the above downsides (chaos, lack of fairness, arbitraryness). I believe that it is due to members personal responsibility. Ad-hoc organization does not enforce responsibility as strictly, so laziness, overconfidence and egotism are harder to control. I guess what I am saying is that I think that without an overseer, the less palatable parts of a job will be overlooked and chaos and low quality will ensue. (based on experience working in modern s/w development with various s/w development methods). 86.152.204.40 (dn) 14:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

wrong origin?
According to Gareth Morgan (Images of Organization, Sage Publication, Updated Edition 2006 - p50) the origin of the term is Warren Bennis. This is supported at this web-page: http://www.mariosalexandrou.com/business-management/adhocracy.asp, 3rd paragraph: The idea first surfaced in the work of US leadership theorist Warren G. Bennis. Writing about the company of the future in The Temporary Society (with Philip Slater in 1968), he predicted that it would rely on nimble and flexible project teams within a structure he called 'adhocracy'. The Latin phrase ad hoc means 'for this particular purpose only', though today it also conveys a sense of improvisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlingjossang (talk • contribs) 12:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Why is he not mentioned in the main article? 70.190.253.2 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I made the edit/change to this. There is clearly documented evidence that Bennis coined the term before Tofler.  Even Henry Mintzberg credits Bennis as the originator: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2393104?uid=3739552&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104689454923 (Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 160)70.190.253.2 (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Referenced COI
I am inclinded to revert this due to WP:COI AND the new addition being not very notable, but there are possibly third party references used. Second opinion? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Both of the cited publications are written by someone with the same name as the account who is referencing them.
 * Jutta (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

job specialization based on formal training?
Under "Characteristics of an adhocracy" are numerous characteristic traits, but the 3rd one jumped out at me as characteristic of Bureaucracy rather than of Adhocracy:

 * highly organic structure[3]
 * little formalization of behavior[1][3]
 * job specialization based on formal training

So I have changed it to   job specialization not necessarily based on formal training

If someone can provide good reference(s) to the contrary, the point should still be clarified.

YodaWhat (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Adhocracy


text: Category:Museums in Arkansas

title: Category:Museums in Arkansas


text: Category:Arkansas culture

title: Category:Arkansas culture