User talk:MathewTownsend/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

Please help to establish notability of the minister from Nigeria you just posted. Just being a minister from Nigeria does not mean the subject is notable. Please review notability guidelines, and then write examples into the article with inline sourcing to external and reliable sources. Happy editing Standard2211 (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok for Daniel Ajayi-Adeniran. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

Please take a look at the newest edits/reversions at the Natalie Wood article. The same editor who added the "Final Months" section previously is readding it and edit warring over it. I've already reverted twice and don't want to violate 3RR. If it's added again, would you please revert it out? Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on the article talk page and the article is on my watchlist. It looks ok for now! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In the current edit war with User:Gertrude Lawrence...tag: you're it (for reverting back what's still being discussed on the Natalie Wood article talk page. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

ok. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your copyedit to Edward Sapir, I really appreciate it. But perhaps it would be better to wait a little, perhaps tomorrow? Since I am working actively on it right now, and two people working at the same time may cause annoying edit conflicts.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Gladly! I wasn't going to do any more right now as I have noticed that you're working on it, but I'm happy that it's ok by you! Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a breath, please

I really think you need to step back, take a breath, and allow things to happen without trying to force them to happen. There is no deadline in Wikipedia. Having the article as it is now hurts nothing and no one. If there was a serious BLP/liability concern, an administrator would have noticed it by now (what with all the RfC's you've filed and the discussion at the article talk page) and done something about it if there was a real problem. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and it is appreciated. The fact that it involves a WP:BLP though means that it is not ok just to leave accusatory and defaming information available in a highly trafficked article while we hash this out. I think the responsible solution would be to remove the information accusing Robert Wagner of causing Natalie Wood's death until this is settles. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) It's "libel", not "slander", when in written form.

(2) How do you know for a fact the article is "highly trafficked" or not?

(3) There's nothing in the article that accuses anyone - it is your opinion based on you reading into what's there.

(4) Don't touch what's in there while you have two (and there should really only be one at a time) RfCs going at two different noticeboards.

(5) If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level. And I really, really don't want to do that.

Lhb1239 (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have no intention of "touching" your article. Remember, you asked me to revert the article when you didn't like what was there and were worried about too many reverts yourself, Lhb1239. I see how you operate and I see the article is owned by you. Thanks for the threats.[1] Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

First off: please think about changing your tone and striking your accusation. I am not claiming nor am I exhibiting any signs of article ownership. Secondly: I'm asking you to back off and take some time away from the article because I think you're losing perspective and are bordering on going against policy. Lastly: There was no threat, just an indication of where things seem to be headed based on your zealousness and over-thinking and heavy-handed editing intentions. Please, just let this issue take its course naturally. Regardless of your personal opinion of how the article reads, there is still no deadline in Wikipedia (hint: read the article on that subject before going off half-cocked and doing something you're going to end up regretting). You've been here all of what? Two weeks? Do yourself a favor and listen to those who've been here a while and have an idea of what's what. Okay? Lhb1239 (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: what "threats" are you talking about in regard to the message I left you yesterday? I was asking you to revert what Gertrude Lawrence had reverted so I wouldn't get a 3RR pinned on me. I was asking you to do me a FAVOR. Get it now? Sheesh...... (this is a perfect example of why you need to step away from the computer and Wikipedia for a bit - you're ability to reason and see things for what they are is deteriorating) Lhb1239 (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, and I did you that favor. Even though you reverted me when I removed repeated wording. When I pointed that out to you, you returned my wording to the article. I see you are quick on the revert button. Well, you don't appreciate favors, I see. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You're starting to not go down a good road. Are you sure you want to go this direction? You might want to reassess. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'm new at editing but not at looking around. I don't think I want to be a bullying editor who assumes bad faith like you are and reverts as a way of life. So, if you don't want to be my friend, that's ok with me. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

I've asked for assistance at the Wikiquette Assistance noticeboard for what I see as an increasing lack of civil behavior from you. You can find the report here. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw the answer there where an editor seems to think I am being appropriate, and says "I do not think it is a WQA issue for an editor to talk about "your article" after reading "If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level".[2]

So I urge you to drop your campaign against me. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no "campaign" against you. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK?

Did you know you are in danger of breaking the 3RR rule and are essentially edit warring at Ronald Reagan? Lhb1239 (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see noticeboard/Edit warring where the IP vandalising Ronald Reagan is reported - User:119.239.94.176 reported by Onorem♠Dil (Result:page semi-protected) - after vandalizing the page 19 times between November 26 and December 2. So I am not worried about myself.

I have noticed that you Lhb1239 appear at the Edit warring noticeboard frequently.[3] where it seems from the comments that you don't understand the 3RR rule well. Thanks for pointing that edit warring page out. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The above was merely a "did you know?". If I wanted to be a WP:DICK rather than trying to help out someone who admits he is new and doesn't understand everything about Wikipedia yet, I would have left you a templated 3RR tag (which someone should have done, BTW). You may feel you were in the right to edit war at Ronald Reagan, however, you weren't. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do report me if you think I am engaging in edit warring. You were blocked for edit warring on November 14 for 48 hours, your second block for such behavior.[4][5] MathewTownsend (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to report you, Matt - as I stated above, I was letting you know you had been edit warring. Doing so is my obligation as a Wikipedia community member - it wasn't meant to be an attack, just a friendly warning (that's why I prefaced it with a "DYK?). Still, even though the IP editor was blocked, you could have been blocked as well. It takes two to edit war, after all. Yes, I have been blocked for edit warring previously. I also admitted my error at the time it occured. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. You have continued to make personal attacks against me in edit summaries and at noticeboards and on talk pages. The latest being here. Please stop. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

ok, I have changed the comment per the instructions in your template above, Lhb1239. I don't understand why you restored my comments, just to template me for them. I removed because I thought better of it. My removal was perfectly appropriate, since no one had responded to it. I have seen other editors remove comments and no one has complained, especially when the comments do not add anything and when no one has responded to them.

I'm not worth all this energy you are directing toward me. Please stop threatening to report me for various things. I think you are too focused on my behavior when really I am harmless. If all this is about my view regarding the Natalie Wood article, then I'm sorry you and I disagree about the BLP issues, but we do. You have threatened to "take this to a higher level" above. You have reported me to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance where an editor said he didn't see anything wrong with my behavior.[6] I think it is time now for you to stop making personal comments about me. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Striking your comments was sufficient - and transparent to other editors reviewing the noticeboard. It's best to strike and then redo, but redoing on a noticeboard can be considered refactoring and might be seen as dishonest. And FYI: the personal attack I was referring to was your edit summary (that claimed I am harassing and following you) as well as your personal attacks yesterday in talk page statements along with edit summaries. Edit summaries are meant for brief summaries about why you have made edits, not commentary and certainly not for furthering disputes and making personal attacks. For more information, see WP:EDITSUMMARY.

The WQA was not a "report" but a request for assistance and advice from non-involved parties. If you really believe it's time for others to not make personal comments about you, it might be wiser to look at your own behavior first. None of "this" is about the Wood article. Your increasingly un-civil behavior toward me, however, is wearing quite thin. While you're looking at the article on edit summaries, you also might want to review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 (#3)

Your recent editing history at WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Additionally, please familiarize yourself with policy regarding refactoring comments on talk pages - what is allowable and what is not. Striking through contentious content is preferred over deleting or refactoring, especially at a noticeboard. You can strikethrough what you would like to see removed and then rewrite what you would rather say. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the edit I made. I didn't revert. You reverted twice. I merely added my comments to the page. That is not a revert. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverting is reverting no matter what the reason, no matter in what order it's done. You've made three reverts on that page. Do not revert again or you may be reported for edit warring/violating 3RR and may be blocked as a result. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that I can't post on that page again or you will block me. All I did was add my comments back to a talk page that you had removed. That is not me reveerting. That is you reverting. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR for an understanding of what edit warring is. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173 where an editor says to you:

"Yes, your poorly thought out revert prompted my looking into your editing behavior. As noted above, I'm generally disinclined to make these sort of reports. Had it not been for the fact that you were continuing to serially revert other users in the face of a warning less than a week after your previous block in the same topic area, I would not have made the report. Instead of thinking of this as a witch hunt, think of it as an attempt to reign in your disruptive behavior." aprock (talk) MathewTownsend (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you are edit warring, close to breaking the 3RR rule, personally attacking other editors, putting inappropriate content on article talk pages, and refactoring comments. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

His discription of your behavior is spot on. That is exactly what you are doing now. It is not a revert for me to add my comments to a talk page. You are not king of talk pages and the sole arbitrator of what goes on there. You are harassing me and following me around and reverting me at every chance you get. You are trying to intimidate me and bully me because my position on Natalie Wood is receiving support. I am asking you to stop. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 (#4)

Your recent editing history at Talk:Natalie Wood shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Please do not return the content removed from this talk page. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. See this link for more information. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments on the above

Mathew, seriously dude, you need to stop and think about what you are, and have been doing. Read the article links that have been provided for you, learn about procedure and policy, and stop doing things you very possibly will regret later. Editing Wikipedia is NOT about winning - it's about building an encyclopedia. Ask yourself if that's what you've been doing in the last 24 hours. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read your own words and consider what you've been doing in the last 24 hours! Don't you do anything else but follow me around and try to screw with my posts? Why don't you try to win by being right about the content of the article instead of reverting me every chance you get? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You've left me no choice

The Natalie Wood talk page is not about you, it's not about your concerns, and it's not about what's going on at noticeboards around the Wiki. If you need to reference comments at other noticeboards, do it via placing a link to a diff, but not by copying and pasting large chunks of discussion from other talk pages on an article talk page. Article talk pages are about the article and its contents, that's all. You have cluttered up the article talk page to the point that if anyone wants to try and understand your concerns or anyone else's concerns about the article's content, they will never be able to wade through it all. Because you keep replacing the inappropriate content, I am now forced to take this elsewhere for administrator intervention. You've been warned already about your disruptive behavior today and yesterday, but you insist on exhibiting WP:IDHT. Enough is enough. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DRN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Talk:Natalie Wood". Thank you. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring Report filed

Because you have ignored previous warnings given today on your talk page, you have been reported for edit warring/violating 3RR at the Edit Warring Noticeboard. The report can be viewed here. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

Please take a look at the newest edits/reversions at the Natalie Wood article. The same editor who added the "Final Months" section previously is readding it and edit warring over it. I've already reverted twice and don't want to violate 3RR. If it's added again, would you please revert it out? Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on the article talk page and the article is on my watchlist. It looks ok for now! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In the current edit war with User:Gertrude Lawrence...tag: you're it (for reverting back what's still being discussed on the Natalie Wood article talk page. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

ok. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your copyedit to Edward Sapir, I really appreciate it. But perhaps it would be better to wait a little, perhaps tomorrow? Since I am working actively on it right now, and two people working at the same time may cause annoying edit conflicts.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Gladly! I wasn't going to do any more right now as I have noticed that you're working on it, but I'm happy that it's ok by you! Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a breath, please

I really think you need to step back, take a breath, and allow things to happen without trying to force them to happen. There is no deadline in Wikipedia. Having the article as it is now hurts nothing and no one. If there was a serious BLP/liability concern, an administrator would have noticed it by now (what with all the RfC's you've filed and the discussion at the article talk page) and done something about it if there was a real problem. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and it is appreciated. The fact that it involves a WP:BLP though means that it is not ok just to leave accusatory and defaming information available in a highly trafficked article while we hash this out. I think the responsible solution would be to remove the information accusing Robert Wagner of causing Natalie Wood's death until this is settles. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) It's "libel", not "slander", when in written form.

(2) How do you know for a fact the article is "highly trafficked" or not?

(3) There's nothing in the article that accuses anyone - it is your opinion based on you reading into what's there.

(4) Don't touch what's in there while you have two (and there should really only be one at a time) RfCs going at two different noticeboards.

(5) If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level. And I really, really don't want to do that.

Lhb1239 (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have no intention of "touching" your article. Remember, you asked me to revert the article when you didn't like what was there and were worried about too many reverts yourself, Lhb1239. I see how you operate and I see the article is owned by you. Thanks for the threats.[7] Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

First off: please think about changing your tone and striking your accusation. I am not claiming nor am I exhibiting any signs of article ownership. Secondly: I'm asking you to back off and take some time away from the article because I think you're losing perspective and are bordering on going against policy. Lastly: There was no threat, just an indication of where things seem to be headed based on your zealousness and over-thinking and heavy-handed editing intentions. Please, just let this issue take its course naturally. Regardless of your personal opinion of how the article reads, there is still no deadline in Wikipedia (hint: read the article on that subject before going off half-cocked and doing something you're going to end up regretting). You've been here all of what? Two weeks? Do yourself a favor and listen to those who've been here a while and have an idea of what's what. Okay? Lhb1239 (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: what "threats" are you talking about in regard to the message I left you yesterday? I was asking you to revert what Gertrude Lawrence had reverted so I wouldn't get a 3RR pinned on me. I was asking you to do me a FAVOR. Get it now? Sheesh...... (this is a perfect example of why you need to step away from the computer and Wikipedia for a bit - you're ability to reason and see things for what they are is deteriorating) Lhb1239 (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, and I did you that favor. Even though you reverted me when I removed repeated wording. When I pointed that out to you, you returned my wording to the article. I see you are quick on the revert button. Well, you don't appreciate favors, I see. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You're starting to not go down a good road. Are you sure you want to go this direction? You might want to reassess. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'm new at editing but not at looking around. I don't think I want to be a bullying editor who assumes bad faith like you are and reverts as a way of life. So, if you don't want to be my friend, that's ok with me. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

I've asked for assistance at the Wikiquette Assistance noticeboard for what I see as an increasing lack of civil behavior from you. You can find the report here. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw the answer there where an editor seems to think I am being appropriate, and says "I do not think it is a WQA issue for an editor to talk about "your article" after reading "If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level".[8]

So I urge you to drop your campaign against me. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no "campaign" against you. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK?

Did you know you are in danger of breaking the 3RR rule and are essentially edit warring at Ronald Reagan? Lhb1239 (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see noticeboard/Edit warring where the IP vandalising Ronald Reagan is reported - User:119.239.94.176 reported by Onorem♠Dil (Result:page semi-protected) - after vandalizing the page 19 times between November 26 and December 2. So I am not worried about myself.

I have noticed that you Lhb1239 appear at the Edit warring noticeboard frequently.[9] where it seems from the comments that you don't understand the 3RR rule well. Thanks for pointing that edit warring page out. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The above was merely a "did you know?". If I wanted to be a WP:DICK rather than trying to help out someone who admits he is new and doesn't understand everything about Wikipedia yet, I would have left you a templated 3RR tag (which someone should have done, BTW). You may feel you were in the right to edit war at Ronald Reagan, however, you weren't. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do report me if you think I am engaging in edit warring. You were blocked for edit warring on November 14 for 48 hours, your second block for such behavior.[10][11] MathewTownsend (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to report you, Matt - as I stated above, I was letting you know you had been edit warring. Doing so is my obligation as a Wikipedia community member - it wasn't meant to be an attack, just a friendly warning (that's why I prefaced it with a "DYK?). Still, even though the IP editor was blocked, you could have been blocked as well. It takes two to edit war, after all. Yes, I have been blocked for edit warring previously. I also admitted my error at the time it occured. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. You have continued to make personal attacks against me in edit summaries and at noticeboards and on talk pages. The latest being here. Please stop. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

ok, I have changed the comment per the instructions in your template above, Lhb1239. I don't understand why you restored my comments, just to template me for them. I removed because I thought better of it. My removal was perfectly appropriate, since no one had responded to it. I have seen other editors remove comments and no one has complained, especially when the comments do not add anything and when no one has responded to them.

I'm not worth all this energy you are directing toward me. Please stop threatening to report me for various things. I think you are too focused on my behavior when really I am harmless. If all this is about my view regarding the Natalie Wood article, then I'm sorry you and I disagree about the BLP issues, but we do. You have threatened to "take this to a higher level" above. You have reported me to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance where an editor said he didn't see anything wrong with my behavior.[12] I think it is time now for you to stop making personal comments about me. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Striking your comments was sufficient - and transparent to other editors reviewing the noticeboard. It's best to strike and then redo, but redoing on a noticeboard can be considered refactoring and might be seen as dishonest. And FYI: the personal attack I was referring to was your edit summary (that claimed I am harassing and following you) as well as your personal attacks yesterday in talk page statements along with edit summaries. Edit summaries are meant for brief summaries about why you have made edits, not commentary and certainly not for furthering disputes and making personal attacks. For more information, see WP:EDITSUMMARY.

The WQA was not a "report" but a request for assistance and advice from non-involved parties. If you really believe it's time for others to not make personal comments about you, it might be wiser to look at your own behavior first. None of "this" is about the Wood article. Your increasingly un-civil behavior toward me, however, is wearing quite thin. While you're looking at the article on edit summaries, you also might want to review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 (#3)

Your recent editing history at WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Additionally, please familiarize yourself with policy regarding refactoring comments on talk pages - what is allowable and what is not. Striking through contentious content is preferred over deleting or refactoring, especially at a noticeboard. You can strikethrough what you would like to see removed and then rewrite what you would rather say. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the edit I made. I didn't revert. You reverted twice. I merely added my comments to the page. That is not a revert. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverting is reverting no matter what the reason, no matter in what order it's done. You've made three reverts on that page. Do not revert again or you may be reported for edit warring/violating 3RR and may be blocked as a result. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that I can't post on that page again or you will block me. All I did was add my comments back to a talk page that you had removed. That is not me reveerting. That is you reverting. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR for an understanding of what edit warring is. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173 where an editor says to you:

"Yes, your poorly thought out revert prompted my looking into your editing behavior. As noted above, I'm generally disinclined to make these sort of reports. Had it not been for the fact that you were continuing to serially revert other users in the face of a warning less than a week after your previous block in the same topic area, I would not have made the report. Instead of thinking of this as a witch hunt, think of it as an attempt to reign in your disruptive behavior." aprock (talk) MathewTownsend (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you are edit warring, close to breaking the 3RR rule, personally attacking other editors, putting inappropriate content on article talk pages, and refactoring comments. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

His discription of your behavior is spot on. That is exactly what you are doing now. It is not a revert for me to add my comments to a talk page. You are not king of talk pages and the sole arbitrator of what goes on there. You are harassing me and following me around and reverting me at every chance you get. You are trying to intimidate me and bully me because my position on Natalie Wood is receiving support. I am asking you to stop. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 (#4)

Your recent editing history at Talk:Natalie Wood shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Please do not return the content removed from this talk page. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. See this link for more information. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments on the above

Mathew, seriously dude, you need to stop and think about what you are, and have been doing. Read the article links that have been provided for you, learn about procedure and policy, and stop doing things you very possibly will regret later. Editing Wikipedia is NOT about winning - it's about building an encyclopedia. Ask yourself if that's what you've been doing in the last 24 hours. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read your own words and consider what you've been doing in the last 24 hours! Don't you do anything else but follow me around and try to screw with my posts? Why don't you try to win by being right about the content of the article instead of reverting me every chance you get? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You've left me no choice

The Natalie Wood talk page is not about you, it's not about your concerns, and it's not about what's going on at noticeboards around the Wiki. If you need to reference comments at other noticeboards, do it via placing a link to a diff, but not by copying and pasting large chunks of discussion from other talk pages on an article talk page. Article talk pages are about the article and its contents, that's all. You have cluttered up the article talk page to the point that if anyone wants to try and understand your concerns or anyone else's concerns about the article's content, they will never be able to wade through it all. Because you keep replacing the inappropriate content, I am now forced to take this elsewhere for administrator intervention. You've been warned already about your disruptive behavior today and yesterday, but you insist on exhibiting WP:IDHT. Enough is enough. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DRN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Talk:Natalie Wood". Thank you. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Many apologies

I have just activated some editing preferences, one of which allows editing using right click. My touchpad is very sensitive and seems to have caused me to save an edit to that page which inadvertently removed your content. I am very sorry to have mucked around like that and will be disabling the edit feature. Regards. Leaky Caldron 23:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for responding! Very much appreciated. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring Report filed

Because you have ignored previous warnings given today on your talk page, you have been reported for edit warring/violating 3RR at the Edit Warring Noticeboard. The report can be viewed here. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

advice

The best way to deal with Lhb1239's warnings and the like is to ignore them. When an editor's complaints e.g. WP:WQA and the 3RR aren't getting traction -- e.g. AussieLegend's reply -- it's reasonable to assume the larger Wikipedia community does not share their concerns and they may safely be ignored -- in fact, it's often preferable. Note also that per WP:OWNTALK you can simply remove their comments from here if you'd like, although copying to an archive page is better, if you wish to take the time to do that. Lhb1239 is correct in the general idea that article talk pages should be limited to discussion of the article and that WP:DIFFs are the preferred way to reference a discussion or post elsewhere on Wikipedia. Gerardw (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the advice. I'm going to take it. At first I was overwhelmed by the barrage of orange-bar warnings, but I have calmed down now. Thanks, for taking the time to leave me this nots and help me gain perspective. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Gerard's advice which is sound. I would also recommend WP:TEA to help diffuse problems. You did well, Mathew. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support! I'm going to try to figure out how to set up an archive. I see them on other user pages and I can probably copy what they do. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a description at WP:ARCHIVE. It's easier with a "bot" ... program that does it automatically. I use MiszaBot, but I think User:ClueBot_III is probably better...I'm just too lazy to update my page to use it. Gerardw (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Will it make new archives as necessary or to I learn now to made them? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've thrown a configuration for Miszabot III on the page. You can see the directions here if you would like to change the parameters. I help out answering requests at User talk:Misza13 for this bot. It should archive your page within the next 24 hours. The bot will create the necessary pages for you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tweaked your setup and everything will be automated for you. I removed your extra line (mispelled) about archive size and bumped down the existing size to 150K which is a good average size (50 is a little low but if you want that by all means change it). I changed your archive header to an automated one. What you did have would have transcluded this current talk page into your archives and you really don't want that.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I would empty your archive page...the bot will move everything for you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will try to understand. What you are saying now is that it will all happen automatically, which is GREAT. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Your recent editing history at Natalie Wood shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully you can chill out a bit and take the article less seriously. I don't think Robert Wagner is going to be indicted because a couple details are overly descriptive or a couple words are out of place for a day or two in the article. CarolMooreDC 03:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your words. No, Robert Wagner isn't going to be indicted. Davern's second book is a slanderous publicity piece and won't be taken seriously by the authorities. If you read the sections on the web, you will see that it is basically fiction. Its inclusion in the article violates the policies on living person, something Wikipedia strives mightily to avoid and we should all be ashamed that it is given such prominence in the article. Also, the rest of the "Death" section was inaccurately referenced. And why should it include the accusations about Wagner, but nothing about Davern's questionable behavior? What a mess! Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 (#2 - 12/06/11)

Your recent editing history at Talk:Natalie Wood shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

As stated in the edit summary each time your talk page entry has been removed, what you have placed there violates WP:TPG. Please edit it soon in order for it to meet the TPGs. If you do not comply, I will be forced to take this elsewhere. You have already violated 3RR tonight several times over, seriously - do you want to skate this close to the edge? Lhb1239 (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:TPG say that if a section header should be changed, first discuss with the editor. There was no justification to revert MathewTownsend's entire comment. This warning is not appropriate and best ignored. Gerardw (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Mao Zedong, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Sino-Japanese War (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 11:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

talk page usage

Don't break up another editors's comments like you did here [13]. It's okay to reply between different editors comments, but not in the middle of a single editor's edits. Gerardw (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia many hours daily and have for years. I see that happening all the time with no complaints. It happens on the Arbcom pages, on the AN/I pages and on talk pages of articles and of editors all the time. It is hard to believe that it is not ok to answer directly a comment at the place on the talk page where the comment is made. Could you point to the rule where it states that is not allowed? The time stamps tell the story. If you can, I will spend many days forward pointing out to editors that they have broken a rule! Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This was one comment [14]. You're right, answering directly is fine, but after the comment, not in the middle of it. Gerardw (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Where'd you go......?

At the Natalie Wood talk page I asked for some proof of the things you've said there:

Diff [15] - "...please provide a link to an online source that shows this book for sale is a completely new book separate from the first that was released in 2009"

Diff [16] - "Please provide proof in the form of diffs to back up your repeated claim that I put '29 warnings' on your talk page in one day."

Diff [17] - "I've never said all editors support me. As with the above, please provide proof in the form of diffs to back up your claim."

Prior to the above, at the BLP Noticeboard earlier today I asked for some proof after you accused me of reverting your comments there:

Diff [18] - "I reverted your comments here when, exactly? Either provide diffs that prove it or retract/strike your bad faith and uncivil accusations."

In the past you've been so quick at responding to queries directed toward you. This time I'm confused by your lack of response. Looking forward to hearing back from you on all this.

Lhb1239 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop harrassing me - you have posted her 35 times in the last few days re Natalie Wood

You started out by reverting an edit I made to the page without reading the diff[19]. I pointed out to you on your talk page that I was merely removing repeated wording. You subsequently returned my wording to the page.[20]

Next you asked me to revert content on Natalie Wood on your behalf as you had already reverted twice and didn't want to violate 3-RR.[21]

Then you notified me to revert the page again.[22]

You have posted on my talk page 35 times in the last few days regarding Natalie Wood[23]

You reported me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring[24] where your complaint was closed with no action, and you reported me to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where your complaint was also unfounded[25]. You also reported me to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance[26] where you were told that you were exhibiting ownership of the Natalie Wood page. Please stop posting on this page. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You stated that I placed "29 warnings" on your talk page. Posting on your talk page and putting "29 warnings" are not the same thing. I put edit warring notices on your talk page (because you were edit warring), but I didn't do that a total of 29 times (which is what your false accusation implied). Your accusation was false and misleading. Please be careful what you say and how you say it in Wikipedia - especially when it comes to accusations. The same goes for accusations that someone is harassing you when they aren't. p.s. I have removed my name from the above heading as putting an editor's name in a heading is against WP:TPGs. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, drop it Lhb1239! Now you have posted 36 times on my page in the last few days.[27] Find something else to do! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

They've stated they will [28]. Gerardw (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Since Lhb1239 just finished posting on my page a few minutes ago, I guess he just had to have the last word! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, we have an essay for that, too WP:LASTWORD.Gerardw (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ha! I guess my experience isn't so unusual! Thanks for that! I'm not the only one to go through something like this. Allows me to put it in perspective. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

I think it would be a good idea for you to take a break from the Natalia Wood article and any interaction with use Lhb1239 for awhile. I have asked him to do the same. This could turn in to a rather unpleasant dispute, if you do not both take a step back at this point. Your statement above is valid and warranted, and I hope he heeds it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have already posted on the page that I will no longer be involved with the article. As noted above, being reported to three different noticeboards in one day and having my talk page bombarded with 35 warnings from him in a few days is not worth it. He obviously exerts ownership of the article, and is willing to war. I am more interested in editing content. My only concern regarding that article was the WP:BLP issues. Now that other editors are involved, I believe the article will become more balanced and the accusations that Robert Wagner is responsible for his wife's death will be diminished on the page.

Thanks for your input. It's appreciated. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is very rare to have a dispute where there is only one person behaving in an unhelpful way. As they say it takes two to tango. I hope your break from Natalie Wood will give you time to think about how to avoid such situations in the future, since you are bound to run into editors with strong opinions again.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if there are very many editors like Lhb1239, I will just give up on Wikipedia. His behavior is unreasonable.[29] I'll not bother with Natalie Wood again. I was merely concerned with the WP:BLP angle, but if Wikipedia doesn't care then I won't either. No wonder Wikipedia is losing editors! I'm certainly less interested now, after this experience. I was going to offer to help copy edit your Edward Sapir article, since my undergraduate minor at Berkeley was in Anthropology. But my motivation to put real work into Wikipedia has evaporated. It's just not appreciated. Much of my work formatting of the references on Natalie Wood was reverted! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to lie to you: Wikipedia does have a problem with welcoming new editors. However as I note it helps a lot if also new comers make sure to treat others in the way that they would like to be treated themselves - considering that often other editors have been working on specific articles for a long time - and that sometimes when you enter in new information you are also changing their work, that has sometimes been the result of lengthy discussions and deliberations. If you stick around on wikipedia you will have both many frustrating and many rewarding experiences. I would certainly appreciate your collaboration on Edward Sapir, and if you ever need to talk to someone about how best to handle a frustrating experience, you are also welcome to come to me. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I wish I could tell you running into problematic editors was rare -- I can't, but I can say they're a minority. In time, you learn how to function without it bothering you too much. If there are just two editors who have a significant disagreement it's really hard to come to consensus. Personally, I like to start WP:RFCs. I've been monitoring Natalie Wood and it does seem like there are enough editors there that a good outcome will occur. Gerardw (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And "ec" means "edit conflict" ... I was typing my reply at the same time as Maunus, so when I pressed Save Page I got a notice from the system. So you just copy and paste your response with the added "ec" -- it tells the reader I wrote my response before I read Maunus's. Gerardw (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm already exhausted from defending myself against all Lhb1239's attacks (where he has been told to back off[30] and that he is wrong in his interpretation of reverts[31] and that Lhb1239 should drop the WP:STICK, stay away from MathewTownsend's talk page, stop reverting MathewTownsend's talk page comment,[32]). This plus his bombardments of my talk page, his attacks at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and his three noticeboard reports on me. Even though he was unsuccessful, it is not worth the energy to be constantly defending myself on noticeboards, nor have a yellow banner flash every time I try to edit another article. I am unwilling to expose myself to further abuse by Lhb1239 and won't participate in anything further regarding Natalie Wood. He can own the page. I'm done with it. It is useless. He will persist. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that is probably best both for the article and for you. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Your recent edits to Natalie Wood were not helpful - they only served to inflame conflict. I have protected the article pending talkpage discussion - it seems very likely that you will not agree with the outcome of that discussion. If you choose to try to force the turn of events by being bold without generating consensus I will see myself forced to block you for disruption. You need to either start working with rather than against other editors on the talkpage, or take a break from editing Natalie Wood.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• response to Maunus
• his reply

Kroeber

Great that you've gone to work on Kroeber. That article also needs attention - if you need sources send me an email. I have resurces that you might use. Best.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I just made one edit to Kroeber! ok, I'll consider your offer but I'm not an anthropologist. And I'm not so much into serious writing these days as much as copy editing. I'll email you for sources and see if I can make something out of them. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Colt

Just wanted to say I appreciate the help with the article. When I first wrote it, I had never heard of John colt previously, I was actually reading a book about his brother, Samuel Colt in hope of improving that article and read about the murder in a half a sentence. I googled him and found all this source material. I guess when I write, I take things for granted on what people know because of the source material. Thanks for helping fill in a few gaps and such...I have had it up at GA since September or October and it is currently under review. Your edits have been extremely helpful. Thanks again.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It's a fascinating story, really stranger than fiction. I think the article will pass GA. And I'm happy to help out in any way I can. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That was my take on it, too. I read a line in a biography to the effect of: "he spent considerable money on the defense of his brother who was on trial for a murder in New York City" and I thought it would just be an old murder story until I read the details (how he tried to dump the body, how his embellished background came back to haunt him, and the suicide/fire in the prison) and saw how the press at the time treated it, how it influenced the Oblong Box, and the courtroom details were like a primitive CSI episode or something like that. It was kind of creepy at some points, but I thought it would make a decent wiki article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism

This edit was likely not vandalism, just poorly worded trivia. Please be more careful when you revert edits by editors and label them vandalism - doing so can scare away new editors who have the capability of making helpful and productive contributions in the future. For more information on what is and isn't considered vandalism, please read WP:VANDAL. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CHINA Barnstar

		The China Star
		I, Ferox Seneca, do hereby award you, Mathew Townsend, with this China Star for your role in improving the article "Sanzo Nosaka". Your suggestions and involvement were instrumental in raising the article to Good Article status.
		this WikiAward was given to MathewTownsend by Ferox Seneca (talk) on 05:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, wow, wow! Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The new name

Added explanation to User:Nobody_Ent. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

December 15, 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ronald Reagan. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please stop following me around. I am not edit warring. Find something else to do. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself, dearie. Ronald Reagan has been on my watchlist for months now. And yes, your behavior did say "edit warring" (hence, the proper and appropriate placement of the warning template). Lhb1239 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't bother you that with all your warnings to me, and all your reporting of me to to various noticeboards, that never have I been sanctioned? And that you are the only person that warns me?

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance Johnuniq 12-312-4
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 12-3
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard12-5

Get a life! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL! You're keeping a growing list of links to diffs where I'm involved handy and at the ready but I'm the one who's fixated? You're cracking me up, Mattie.  :-D

• If Ronald Reagan is on your watchlist, as you claim, how come you haven't warned User talk:Terence7 even once, although he has reverted five times today. See [33] MathewTownsend (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• You're just proving that you stalk me! Lhb1239, why haven't warned User talk:Terence7 for his five reverts today of Ronald Reagon yet you are fascinated with me? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Asexuality#"Sexual orientation" in hatnote

Hello, MathewTownsend. Will you weigh in on the above linked discussion since it concerns a change made by you? Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

ok, I did. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

GA

Just to let you know - I'm online most of today and I think we could finish any remaining concerns you have about the SDG article - lede has been expanded and I think I've responded to the rest of the review comments but not entirely sure... Failedwizard (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but confused by that bit - was that the plan that sounds good or the article does now? Failedwizard (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The plan sounds good. I haven't looked at the article today, but the basic problem was the lede. It needs to summary the whole article.

Also, you were going to consult with your co-editors about incorporating a little more info from Augmentative and alternative communication - if they would object or not. I really liked the vocabulary info in Vocabulary organization section of that article. I think how the choices for output are presented gives great insight into what it is like to use one of these devices. Giving more examples of the vocabulary is really helpful. And also the part about visual displays with the child's room. It presents a whole new way of conceptualizing how these SGDs can be organized, not just in a matrix. And the article really should present this option.

But the main issue holding it back from GA is the lede. Please don't feel pressured! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mathew, the lede is extended a fair amount, what do you think? Regarding other edits - I've read back though what I wrote and I must apologise because it wasn't very clear - what I should have written was that *if* the movement/copying of content turns out to be a sticking point on the GA review then I'd like to get the input of at least one other editor who has been heavily involved. Apologies for any confusion. Failedwizard (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I replied on the article GA review page. Hopefully I explained myself. Feel free to provide me with feedback. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

? (film)

I've replied at the GA nomination. Sorry it took so long; I had to go out for a bit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hey - thank you for your review. You went to a lot of effort, and went well above the call of duty. It was great to work with someone of that level of enthusiasm and nice that you were online so much and we could get through the review quickly. Very happy with the outcome and I hope you keep reviewing :) Failedwizard (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It was a pleasure to work with you and I learned about a fascinating area I knew nothing about. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

• News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics

• In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?

• Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions

• WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics

• Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content

• Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators

• Technology report: Visual editor demo launched, hailed as "most important change to our user experience ... ever"; but elsewhere over-hasty deployments criticised

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your review of The Number Devil! My last good article nomination took nearly two months to get reviewed. I will address the issues as soon as possible. Thanks again.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 02:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you are very welcome. I'm so glad you took the comments constructively. I believe that User:Bobnorwal also wants to help you out. Certainly I do. I believe the references can be sorted out and a balanced article will be the result. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble replacing the citation about the mathematics curriculum. Would this article do? "And parents all over the world find treasures like this book to help their children develop the math confidence that is critical so they will courageously stay with their math and algebra studies." --Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 18:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You can use that site as a source for their opinion about the book. But the statement is clearly directed at parents. And it gives no information about how frequently the book is actually used, nor how useful it actually is to kids. And it may unintentional support the criticism: "I suspect this is the sort of book that well-meaning adults will mistakenly thrust upon children because it will be Good for Them, not necessarily a book that one child would heartily recommend to another."

You don't have to make extraordinary claims about the book's world wide popularity or its use in math education to describe the book and give balanced critical views, pro and con.

Hope this helps. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I sorted all that out. One last question, and I really don't mean to bother you, but can I cite this for the dates of publication in German and English? The publisher surely can't have bias in a date?--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 00:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. And you're not bothering me! Feel free to ask me any questions you have. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with The Number Devil, can you make sure I addressed all the problems?--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 02:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I will. But maybe not tonight. It's late for me! (It looks much better though.) MathewTownsend (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Understood. I will remove those statements if I can't find any source (though I'm pretty sure I can find a better source for the "adult readers" statement).--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 16:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your review and guidance. I really appreciate it. Thanks again, --Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Can you add the green plus sign to the top of the article?--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 20:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It was a pleasure and I hope to see another nomination from you soon! You did a great job. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Re the GA symbol, there is a bot that runs around and does that. It will happen soon! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Jack Chesbro

I've responded to your comments. Let me know if there's anything else you need. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Saman

• I've finished with Saman. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've replied at the nomination page forSaman (time zones are fun, aren't they?) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hopefully that last rearrangement/expansion was enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Go ahead... I mean, it's just the lede, right? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding, Saman (novel), I mean mostly the lede. But there are a few things in the article that seem inaccurate to me. I will list them on the Talk:Saman (novel) page. In any case, anything you disagree with you are free to change. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Alright... I'll wait. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Holidays of Future Passed

I won't have time for Wikipedia today and perhaps not tomorrow either so I'll have to check through your changes when I get time. Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

ok. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you review the article again? I have made some adjustments and I reverted your edits to the "Media attention" section. In my opinion they only made it worse, and also, where did you get the idea that Debbie Schlussel writes for the Houston Chronicle? Because she doesn't, and the comments in the article come from her blog. Regards, Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, this article by Gallagher that is used in the article is just a transcript of a video segment he did about the episode. So it's correct to say "Dawud Walid [...] commented in the report that..." Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

ok, will do. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the changes I made to the article and my replies at the review (I didn't respond to everything). Thanks, Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks much much better! Give me a few minutes to look through it. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks, you really helped me make that a better article!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It's a great article. If you ever take it further, you should put more in the lede. There's so much wonderful stuff about him in the article, that isn't conveyed in the lede. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for nitpicking Hotel Polen fire! :) S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 02:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to more articles from you! MathewTownsend (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep that may come to pass yet. I wrote 206 articles already, one of which is now a GA. Not too bad. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 03:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC).

GA template

Hi, thanks for your GA reviews. In case you didn't realise there are several paramters of the GA template which should be completed as:

{{GA|date=24 December 2011 (UTC)|topic=History|page=1|oldid=467431353}}

The timestamp is added by using five tildes as ~~~~~ Topic is the main topic, not the subtopic, page is the page number of the review, e.g GA1 wiuld be 1; oldidid is the revision id of the article when the review was completed, similar for the FailedGA template. This all helps the bots upsdate the article history. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

GANs

This user has made about 25 edits to Wikipedia which over 5 of them are GANs [34]. It is a little silly and I will close the two I am doing after a couple of days.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Started a discussion here [35] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you Mathew! CarlosBergaz (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Relevent to your review.

Talk:Speech_generating_device#Some_concerns_about_this_article.

By all means comment - this is the other editor who I mentioned as being someone I'd want to consult before making any drastic changes - so now might be a good time to re-raise any issues you had at the time and we can work together as a three. Also there is some mention of taking the article back to GA for reassessment. Failedwizard (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review for Hitting for the cycle

Thank you for such a timely and concise review. I believe that I have addressed the comments you made. — KV5 • Talk • 20:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Kenny Roberts review

Thank you for your review of the Kenny Roberts article. I appreciate your time and efforts. Yes, the Motorsport Section was the proper place to list the article.Orsoni (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Turning Point

Thanks for the review of Turning Point (2007). I went through the article and fixed all the concerns you had. I also performed a copyedit on the article for anything that seemed long winding or confusing.--WillC 22:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks. I'll finish it up soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, if you have any more issues just leave them on the GA subpage and I'll take care of them as soon as I see your edits.--WillC 07:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for passing the article.--WillC 19:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there MathewTownsend, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:MathewTownsend/Sandbox.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

ok, I had an article in there, but I have blanked the page. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Openness versus quality: why we're doing it wrong, and how to fix it

• Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data

• News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news

• WikiProject report: The Tree of Life

• Featured content: Going through the roster with Killervogel5 and a plethora of featured content

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales

• Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Gashouse Gang

Thank you for your review of the Pepper Martin article. Regarding the naming of one section of the article as the Gashouse gang, I can see how it may be straying from the subject at hand. I am open to other suggestions.Orsoni (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the less catchy but more accurate "Later career"?

You could have a subsection on his practical jokes and other antics, perhaps called "The Cashouse gGang". MathewTownsend (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi MathewTownsend, I am not currently taking on any additional adoptees at the moment, as I don't have sufficient time to invest. However, I'm certainly available for questions, in case you have any specific things you want to know. Also, I may have time early next year, I'll keep you posted. You might want to have a look at WP:ADOPT for other adopters. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

ok. Hope you do keep me posted. And I'll keep you in mind for questions. Thanks so very much. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I said I'd keep you posted, and since circumstances have changed, I'd now be willing to adopt you if you're interested. Let me know. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Great! I would like that! There's so many rules and policies. It's hard to know what to follow. So guidance and help would be appreciated. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I'll set you up and get back to you :) Worm^TT · (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'll also be glad to help if you need a couple of quick pointers. Worm has a very in-depth training guide, so I'd suggest taking a look at some of his successful adoptees to get a rough understanding. 15:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry! I specifically said I'd help you out and then went off for a week. I'm back now though, so I'll get my training course set up for you. I'm glad to see Crisco is interested in helping out too, you're lucky to have someone like him here! Worm^TT · (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi MathewTownsend. Sorry for the delay, but I've set things up for you. Have a look at User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/MathewTownsend and let me know if you've got any questions Worm^TT · (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Blame It on Lisa

I responded on the review page! :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the article now, removing all the analysis. Do you have any issues with what is left in the article? Regards, Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(Made the heading, as I can't ever find your comments!) I will look again shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that's what I love about the Simpsons; the mix between sharp satire, humor, and emotion. Unfortunately, the show has been been lacking that mix for the majority of the last 14 seasons or so. Theleftorium ^(talk) 23:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit

Thanks for the copy edit at common cold. Thankfully medical exams are multiple choice :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you link to it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Didn't notice the name, as I don't take drugs for colds, probably because I never get them. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your outstanding efforts to reduce the GA backlog with a series of fine reviews. Keep up the great work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I feel rewarded! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding: you gave me a nice post-Noel gift by your excellent review of Noel F. Parrish. That article is mentioned on top of my talk, and it makes me happy to see it as GA although its author left us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

RE:Cowboys & Aliens passed GA

Thank you, sir! --Boycool (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Colt

Go ahead, I'm finished. I was working on a related article about a Church his widow had dedicated to him in 1867 and it has its own article but wasn't mentioned in his. It's in the National Historic Register so I added a brief bit on it in the article. I'm done now, though! Thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I got evrything, let me know. Thanks again!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I put this up at FAC a few days ago.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

		The GA Helping Hand Barnstar
		Thank you for the article Noel F. Parrish that you reviewed and helped to improve. Thank you for your work here. Ched would like to award you the GA Editing Barnstar.

Thanks Mathew. Not only did you provide a thorough and fair assessment of the article - but I noticed that you rolled up your sleeves and helped make it a better article yourself. That goes above and beyond what's asked at GAN, and I greatly appreciate it. If I can ever be of assistance with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. It's a true pleasure to meet and work with you. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  14:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It was a pleasure and the article deserved it. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yea?

I like the idea of alternate universes!

Oh really? ... you wouldn't happen to be a Stargate fan would you? — Ched :  ?  14:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't know anything about Stargate. I'm uneducated! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Colt

Ah, good point. Perhaps I need to draw that out better! At that point in time, guns for the most part were made individually. A gunsmith would take a piece of wood and cut a blank for the stock from it, make or purchase a barrel, make the lock, make or procure small parts, assemble, fit and final finish the gun. As you could imagine making guns like this would be very time consuming. Colt wanted to invest in machines to make all these small parts, but the idea in manufacturing was so new that the investors didn't have faith in it working; plus the economy was in severe decline at the time. Colt was the president, but the board had to reign him in at times. These were men of means and while they were sold on his idea he was only 22 or 23 at the time. He was regarded by most of the board as a spendthrift and would think nothing of spending $100's (probably thousands in today's money) lavishly entertaining/bribing government officials for potential sales. He was known for getting people intoxicated during his sales pitches. In 1843 the company was basically sold out from under him by the board and the machinery auctioned off.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there were only 1,000 Walker Colts made. 300 were returned for repair due to ruptured cylinders and as of 2011 less than 200 of these guns are accounted for in museums and private collections (they are worth anywhere from $190,000 to as high as $350,000) however there were 100 made for the civilian market outside the first 1,000 and at least 3 transitional models that I know of made between the Walker and the Dragoon, I am not sure what they were called at the time but collecters have retrojected various names into certain guns made mostly from Walker parts that I thought was out of scope here. Examples:"Hartford Dragoon", "Whitneyville Walker Transitional number 2", etc--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of this article ... that is some really fine copyediting work, and it's the stuff that's hard to teach, too. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested in FAC standards on WP, it might or might not be helpful to look at the changes I made to the lead and first section, since you've just been working on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

Thank you so much for reviewing and passing "Just a Kiss". Happy New Year! Novice7 (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I know we didn't always see eye to eye but I greatly appreciated your efforts which definitely improved the article. That is the goal of Wikipedia, after all. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm most appreciative of this from you. Thank you! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sastra wangi

Hey Mathew, just to let you know that sastra wangi will be on the main page on 2 or 3 January... as the lead DYK hook. Awesome! Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, this is great news! Will I get a little credit thingie also? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Query

An article that you recently passed at GAN has been flagged at DYK as containing potential close paraphrasing. Can you describe your process of reviewing for this type of issue in GANs? Did you do so in this case? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I follow the advice on the essay on Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches as best as I can. If I am suspicious of some sentences, I look them up in Google. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. A few more questions, from that: when you look up a potentially problematic phrase in Google, do you place it in quotation marks? Were there any sentences from this specific article that you checked? Are you aware of the limitations of Google-searching in discovering close paraphrasing as opposed to copyvio? Sorry if this seems like an interrogation; I'm simply trying to determine how to best approach this issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This does feel unpleasantly like an interrogation. Am I about to be sent to Guantanomo? (I do know he difference between copyvio and close paraphrasing, and the purpose of using quotes in Google.)

I have a mentor, and I much prefer to deal with him on this issue. He has has pleasant way of teaching. Why don't you offer some helpful pointers, rather than framing your concerns as harsh questions? (That's a suggestion on how best to approach this issues, as you stated you were trying to do above. Your current method seems very alienating.)

Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool, but I don't know what you knew and didn't, so rather than explain everything - and risk being patronizing - I prefer to ask first. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nikki, I think you've made your point, now Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Mat is right, the way you broach this doesn't help yourself at all.PumpkinSky talk 22:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to help myself, so there's no need to be overly concerned about that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll be more blunt: you've made your point, drop it, you're hurting the pedia at this point. PumpkinSky talk 22:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Blame It on Lisa

So the nominator with me and Maith would like 2nd opinion for the article. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

ok, probably more than one second opinion would be better than just one, including some the have a wider view of WP than pop culture articles. This would be appreciated. I have already asked for a second opinion but not received a response. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Marktkirche Unser Lieben Frauen

So far I didn't look at Good Articles, but saw this grow from stub to something I like a lot. What do you think of a GA nomination, you saw several? If yes, should I propose it, or rather the author(s)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a good person to ask, since I've never nominated a Good article and I don't know anything about Marktkirche Unser Lieben Frauen or German churches. I don't speak German so I wouldn't be able to help out with the sourcing. Sorry! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! PumpkinSky offered help, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

• Interview: The Gardner interview

• News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III

• Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future

• Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you..

	Canterbury thanks...
	Long deceased Archbishops of Canterbury thank you for helping with two more steps along the way to eventually having all of the pre-1300 articles on them at GA or FA status. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god! How many of them are there? Thanks for the thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Ealdgyth/Works In Progress#Archbishops of Canterbury is mostly complete with what needs work - although there are some missing from that list. The complete list is at: List of Archbishops of Canterbury. The actual aim is to get as many of the pre-1300 English bishops up to some sort of GA or equivalent status - going to be more difficult with many of the plain bishops. Obviously, this is a major undertaking. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I'm impressed by both lists. (I've just discovered lists through the one on the main page today List of Interstate Highways in Texas which is strangely fascinating.) If I had read List of Archbishops of Canterbury the bishop articles would have made a little more sense. I'm awed by User:Ealdgyth/Works In Progress. You're a most unusual person. (Think so even more, having read your user page)! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Blame It on Lisa

I'm sorry that I became kind of frustrated during the review! Unfortunately that happens to me occasionally, when I get stressed (IRL and online). I probably should have been a bit more polite. But thanks a lot for the review and the copyedits! Happy new years! Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You were really very accommodating and cooperative. You stuck to your guns in the end and were right to do so, as looking at the article now I see that your improvements were very good. Happy New Year to you too! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Cold

Hi Mathew,

Did the problem with my edit to Common cold ([36]) concern the actual change in wording, or did it somehow mess up the formatting or presentation of the page? If the latter, it might have been a temporary glitch, as the servers have been under strain over the last few hours. Sometimes purging a page can fix such glitches.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It seemed to mess up the formating when I tried to read the article, but I couldn't figure out how to fix it. It was only after I did the "undo" that I realized that you had been editing the article for a while. So I apologize of I make a mistake. What it seemed like to me was that the links in the lede didn't work and I couldn't understand what was going on. But, again, I'm sorry if I misperceived the situation. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologise, all good. That does indeed sound like a server glitch. I've re-done the edit and it renders ok for me, but if you see a problem, please re-revert me as that might mean it's actually a bug that only affects some browsers or something. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine now. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of High Five Interchange

The article High Five Interchange you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:High Five Interchange for things which need to be addressed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'll work on it tomorrow. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a few more comments to the GAN page. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

paraphrasing

I'll look at it for you. I think they might use something like Grammarly. Check with Nikkimaria or Orlady, maybe Moonriddengirl. I have run into it a few times, once with William F. Moran the other with Buster Warenski. I got hit on Warenski [37] at DYK because I listed the materials he used in his $200K art knives and there's only so many ways you can say "ounces of gold, number and carat of jewels, etc". Moran was similar, but they actually deleted the old one and made me start over, because I had not added any sources yet. (I tend to write first and add sources later). With the proliferation of thumbnail sketches about famous people on the web, and our requirement of "summary style" a lot of what could be called "Close paraphrasing" really isn't. There's only so many ways you can say something about a person. I use this to check [38], this is good if you want to check against a source on a webpage [39], but if the article is more than a month old it's almost worthless because it picks up wiki and all the mirror sites.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing how unhelpful the "help" pages are, including Nikkimaria's, for detecting plagiarism/close paraphrasing. Besides mentioning the obvious ways (actually reading sources and comparing - which isn't much use if you don't have access to the sources - and common sense googling of certain phrases) they really don't say anything useful. And most of the links offered on those "help" pages are dead. Your link looks useful. Just past an article in one paragraph at a time? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh I meant to just ask them outright, not check their pages. yeah one para at a time is a way to do it in the copy and paste ones, a bigger article might choke them.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Sastra wangi

The DYK project (nominate) 23:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• You're very much welcome; do you want any pointers for the nomination process, in case you want to try for one? I'm not that rushed right now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd welcome pointers and tips. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, first the article. It should be at least 1500 characters and have a minimum of one reference per paragraph except for the lede and plot section (for novels, films, plays, etc.) The grammar doesn't have to be GA-class, but it should at least be readable (no dropped articles / particles etc.) Timeframe-wise, it should be at most 5 days old if a new article or have had its expansion started in the past five days if it is a 5x expansion; the 5x expansion criteria is counted from what we call readable prose, defined as text outside of lists, tables, charts, references, blockquotes and so on.

The nomination process is (hopefully) fairly easy to follow. About a sixth of the way down T:TDYK there is a step-by-step nomination process. First, you create a subpage by entering the name of the new / expanded article in the white bar. You then fill out the template, with at minimum the name of the article, at least one hook (the blurb that goes on the front page), and your name. The hook(s) should be under 200 characters and contain a bolded link to the target article; they should also be "hooky", i.e. draw readers towards the article. After saving this nomination, you transclude it under the date you started expansion / created the article; for example, if you started on 1 January then you transclude it under the header 'January 1', even if you nominate it on 3 January. If you already have five DYKs, then you should try to review another DYK and provide a link to your review from your nomination.

Sorry if it's a little hard to understand... 6 a.m. here and all. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I understand that. The DYK nomination page confused me. But now I think I can do it. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• The template can be a bit frightening if you aren't used to it. If you want to enter a second or third hook, you need to add the parameter "|ALT1= ...", "|ALT2= ...", and so on. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Humm. I guess I'll just have to try it (if I ever write a big enough article) and see what you mean. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Trust me, if you have at least one good source 1500 characters goes by very quickly. At Java War (1741-1743), I didn't realize that I had written 15,000 characters until after I was finished. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• You can also ask me anytime! (For instance about adding a picture after the first nomination.) I helped another editor to his first DYK, which made it made it to the statistics of more than 5000 hits. - I can't believe that this your first DYK, seeing for example the thorough work you did on Noel F. Parrish, mentioned on top of my talk, with thanks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Don't know if you checked (or care), but the article got 2,100 hits. For some reason Ayu Utami got almost 3 times as many. Meh, still not a bad turnout. Amir Syamsuddin got 107 hits. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know! Ayu Utami got more I bet because of her beauty. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps! When this picture of Anna May Wong was used for Island of Lost Men, the film article received 20k hits; Wong's article received 13k. All my really big hits were related to sex in some way... there was the Quickie Express and Sandra Dewi double hook (20k together) and Muria people and Premarital sex double hook (18k or so)... wonder how many Anal people will get. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Yes, sex. Interesting. We'll see how Anal people does. You're sure good for Indonesia - glad to see that. (I bet you have several potential GAs there.) Maybe if Sastra wangi had not been piped, it would have gotten more hits. I know I click on interesting words. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, a lot of stuff about Indonesia is untapped... even national heroes are missing (hence all the redlinks at Template:National Heroes of Indonesia). Mind you, a couple of my non-sex related hooks have done well. Garin Nugroho got 8k, and his hook was about volcanic run-off, and "Do Right Woman, Do Right Man" got 18k, and the hook was about Aretha Franklin disappearing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• I can't believe "Do Right Woman, Do Right Man" didn't already have an article on it! You're very enterprising to discover these things. You write articles on interesting topics. Your user page is very interesting. I would love to live in Indonesia. I would help you with the Indonesian articles, but I don't speak the language. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks; after doing "Tonight's the Night" I cherry picked random songs from The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, and I found a) many articles in terrible shape, and b) Do Right Woman didn't have an article. There may still be some songs in the list that don't have an article or just have a stub. As for Indonesia-related articles, at times you don't even need to speak the language. Sam Poo Kong uses almost all English sources, for example. Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tips. I will definitely look into these. First off, Sam Poo Kong looks doable, even for me! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. If you want an idea, this may help. Not sure how much you're into architecture. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm very much into architecture, but mostly through books. I'm not familiar at all with Indonesian architecture, and none of my books covered that temple. But I won't give up on it. It may take me some time to figure it out -- like apparently there are actually five temples (?) where once there was just a cave? - I was in over my head fast! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's a fairly big complex, although nowhere near the size of Borobudur. The city has a heavy Chinese influence, including a ginormous Chinatown and a pagoda at the southern limits; I forget the name though, so I can't do a writeup. Alright, gotta go. Breakfast then time for my thesis to be reviewed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review of Sealyham Terrier

Just wanted to say I'm happy with the edits you've made, and thanks for the review. Miyagawa (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's a pass! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Speech generating device

Hi

I have added some comments on the Speech generating device talk page. I would appreciate your input. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I will tomorrow. Too tired right now. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

• Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold

• News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang

• In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches

• WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz

• Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3

• Technology report: December in more detail; and why the MediaWiki codebase was "slushed" this week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for the number of great GA reviews you've done lately, with precision and thoughtfulness. I hope we will continue to see you around GAN for some time to come. Dana boomer (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! A pleasure!

I came here to give you a barnstar, but I see that someone beat me to it :) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Your review of Greenville Bridge

You're welcome, keep up the good work! I've noticed you're interested in road-related articles, you may want to check out WP:USRD. Dough4872 00:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I check it out. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

RE GAN

Thank you for the review, very much so. I have handled all issues at the subpage.--WillC 22:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have asked one more question! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, answered said question.--WillC 23:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for passing and reviewing this article.--WillC 23:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited George Went Hensley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church of God (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) 11:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for reviewing and helping to improve Paiyaa! Uncomplicated and very fast, great! Johannes003 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I like to see such films promoted! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I must say that you copy-edited the article at an amazing speed. Thanks a lot for everything. Just one issue, do you think sources 11-15 qualify as reliable? X.One ^SOS 08:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Looking at the sites kollywoodtoday.com and cinesouth.com, they don't seem different from sites like indiaglitz.com. or behindwoods.com. None of them describe their editorial policy. Is the information those citations controversial, do you think? One way to find out if those sources are reliable is to ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Or ask editors that are experienced in writing articles about Indian films. I'll see if I can check it out. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, Behindwoods and Indiaglitz have been disputed in the past but they are normally used in Tamil film articles, and considered reliable. The doubt only lies on cinesouth and kollywoodtoday. If those two are doubted, then why was the article passed? ;) X.One ^SOS 14:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you point me to where all this is discussed? Looking at the sites, Behindwoods, Indiaglitz, Oneindia, Sify seem no more reliable than cinesouth and kollywoodtoday. None of them have signed articles nor disclose how they control their content. So what is the criteria? None of theme discuss their editorial policy, do they? There are two ways to go. One, remove all information sourced to sites not revealing their editorial policy that can't be sourced to a site judged reliable. Or two, ask for Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. What do you think?

I don't think editorial policy is the only way to judge a source's reliability. For discussion, you can see the talk page of the Indian Cinema task force. What I was saying is that other than cinesouth and kollywoodtoday, all the other sites are well known and to some extent, notable. They are generally trusted as entertainment portals and are very much active sources on a day-to-day basis. Whereas, if you see, cinesouth and kollywoodtoday do not provide daily news. They only publish content inconsistently once in a blue-moon and I haven't heard of their mention anywhere. They are nearly like blogs. And a GAR right now would not be wise as the article has just been passed. Never mind, we can take care of it in the next GA review, which is likely to come in the next 2 years. Regards. X.One ^SOS 10:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Couple of suggestions:

1. Bold the new article in the hook (no biggie, as other editors will fix it if they see it)
2. Don't forget to transclude the nomination onto T:TDYK, like so
3. Not everyone knows where Tampa Bay is, so the hook should probably have Tampa Bay, Florida instead of just Tampa Bay.
4. About the article itself, the last couple of paragraphs read like a newspaper piece. You may want to look into that and consider paraphrasing some of the quotes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• For the transclusion, you just need to put {{Did you know nominations/Bayshore Boulevard}} or whatever the name of the nomination's page is in the right section, aka if you started the expansion on the 14th then it goes under the section titled "January 14".

For the reviewing, that is only if you have five or more DYKs.

Side note: I've added a couple sources that may be useful to the talk page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I noticed you during a SPI I was compiling, and even quoted one of your diffs (sorry - I misspelled your name there). I wanted to let you know that the #2 contributor to your talk page was in fact a banned editor (not blocked, but banned) who had slipped under the radar for too long and got too comfortable. The case is now closed, but see this for further information. Cheers, and good luck :> Doc talk 05:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I Lhb1239 was after me for some reason and filed simultaneous complaints at
  • Wikiquette
  • at the 3RR board
  • Dispute resolution board
  • read a sample of his warnings on my talk page here.

I couldn't get any help so I ignored his postings on my page and stopped reverting vandals on Ronald Reagan, in fact stopped all editing except reviewing GAs. It didn't occur to me he was a sockpuppet. But he was definitely out to get me. So I'm glad he was stopped. But won't he return again? What should I do in the future? Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied over there. I wouldn't worry too much about her for awhile, but now that you know who you're dealing with it should make more sense: most seasoned wikipedians are not nearly so mean. Editors get banned for very good reason, usually. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

• Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

• Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

• News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

• Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

• Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Many thanks for your review of Motul de San José - you didn't really give me a hard time, just a well-needed fresh eye! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Axial Seamount

Responded. Cheers, ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Slammiversary

Thank you for passing the article and all the edits you made were perfectly fine, improved it very much. Certainly the fraction addition, I had no idea it was even possible to do that.--WillC 22:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I appreciate your cooperation! Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You are a good reviewer, I like it when I get reviews by you, so that is one reason.--WillC 13:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Tacchi Venturi/GA1

Thanks for reviewing the article. Unfortunately, I was unable to do much in response to many of your comments due to the limited sources available. If you can suggest sources that I have overlooked, I will be glad to include that material. Savidan 03:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I replied on the GA review page.[40] Please feel free to ask me questions and I will try to help in any way I can. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done more to address your concerns. Please respond at your convenience. Savidan 17:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm looking at it now. Like your additions which clarify greatly. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi Mathew. Sorry it's been so long on the questions. I've loaded you up, so you've got some to do. I'm actually going to be stepping away from WP for a bit, so take your time - I'll check your answers when I get back. Shouldn't be more than a week or so. Hope all's well with you. Worm^TT · (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Greatly appreciated. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

GA

Thanks for your review for the MTV Unplugged album, I already fixed all the issues. Would you be kind enough to check them out? Jaespinoza (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again! Cheers. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Driscoll

Hi MathewTownsend,

thanks a lot for reviewing the article on Bobby Driscoll so fast. Your browser is fine, the broken links are just because the references, linked in the article, once had been scanned and put on a website on Bobby Driscoll, which I ran from 2007- ca. mid-2009. But basically due to tightened and stricter copyright laws in Germany (I am from Germany), back then, I deleted the entire website. But the sources are still reliable (mainstream press etc.) - please read the comment (and my reply) under paragraph "references". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bobby_Driscoll Most of the original press-material I took from the newspaper-archive of anchestry.com. Now there are two options: either you suspend reviewing the aricle, giving me the time to re-upload the material on a neutral (and unlisted) website, in order to re-create the references/sources, or I temporarily withdraw the GA-assessment, with the same purpose. Frankly, I didn't expect the review this fast, since I read in the rules, that it can take some weeks until someone would find the time. But it would be very nice, anyway, if you could tell me your opinion, so I can concurrently revise the points in question. I guess, I was a bit too fast with my request for assessing the article. I'm really sorry for this inconvenience. regards --Bylot (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I answered on the GA review page. See [41] Don't mind waiting. Whatever you want to do. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I saw that you edited the article on Bobby Driscoll. I created a backup copy of the article on my user-page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bylot/Bobby_Driscoll to freely work on the text without changing the actual article too often. When I'm finished I then just want to replace it entirely. I added some reduced Fair-Use images of Driscoll's most important movies and hope that there will be no problems with them. Best regards--Bylot (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

ok, I'll wait until then. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement

Your changes were mostly fine. I made two nits. Savidan 06:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited St. Elizabeths Hospital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Justice (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) 10:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:GA Naruto Uzumaki

Thanks for the review. I found it entertaining. The only doubt I find is that if names like the Fourth Hokage's and the Fox's whose names are revealed after their mention in the article should be added. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please use your own judgment. Whatever you think is right. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

FC

Mathew, thanks for your work on this week's Featured content. I wonder whether you're interested in contributing on a regular basis. Crisco is now the major editor (I did it for a year and a half, and I'm very glad to take a back seat). Tony (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested if I could start slowly so that I could get used to the format and content. Crisco seems to do it effortlessly, while I struggle with writing and formatting. I'd like to help out and maybe I could be more useful than I think I could. (Maybe I'm underestimating myself.) We could give it a try! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Crisco's computer is working again, and he's back home (after attending a wiki meet-up). Why not come in after his initial drafts each week and copy-edit/fix as you did, just to get the hang of it. I was using a basic structure I developed here, although I think Crisco must have taken this and modified it a little. This is no big deal. The order of the sections is occasionally modified to suit topical circumstances. We've found the pic syntaxes work best all stacked under the first featured section (usually FAs), because this make them neat and minimises text sandwiching and acres of white text, both of which are problems with wide window-widths. Wikilinks are usually restricted in the blurbs, since we want people to click to the newly featured material to get those, rather than to divert elsewhere. Crisco usually does the page now, and I come in and tinker occasionally. Tony (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

ok, that suits me. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)