User talk:MathewTownsend/Archive 2

) 16:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice! Also I have good memories of it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for passing it! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, I see you have been keeping pretty busy lately. Thanks for your help on Elias Abraham Rosenberg thus far, I got some help looking for sources and was able to add a bit to the article. If you have time/interest, feel free to check over the article again and/or weigh in at the peer review. Thanks! (totally not urgent, take your time) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

ok, I have been sort of following it, as its on my watchlist. Remains an interesting bit of history. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks MathewTownsend for helping to promote give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you so much for all the work you did for the Grand Palace article. The task was monumental and you carried it out with great diligence and skill. Thank you! Sodacan (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

hello,

thanks for your interest on

16:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking! My Palmer book doesn't mention

Folk Singer

, as it's a relatively late album. I must have 20 books that have sections on Muddy Waters, but most don't mention that recording. The Rolling Stone Album Guide just says: "Folk Singer is a return to the Delta blues, an all-acoustic session with Waters and Buddy Guy on guitars and Willie Dixon on bass." The Chess Box has these songs from Folk Singer on it: "My Home Is in the Delta" (1963), "Good Morning Little Schoolgirl" (1963), "You Can't Lose What You Never Had"(1964), "Short Dress Woman" (1964). The liner notes for the Chess box (by Robert Palmer) don't say anything in particular about his 1960s bands. It mentions the personnel on those four songs.

• "My Home Is in the Delta" (1963) - Recorded September 1963. Muddy Waters (vocal, guitar); Buddy Guy (guitar); Willy Dixon (bass); Clifton James (drums). Originally released on Chess IP 1483 Folk Singer.

• "Good Morning Little Schoolgirl" (1963) - Same recording date and personnel as "My Home Is in the Delta". Originally released on Chess IP 1483 Folk Singer.

• "You Can't Lose What You Never Had"(1964) (Same recording date and personnel as "The Same Thing" - which was: Recorded April 1964. Muddy Waters (vocal, guitar); Otis Spann (piano); Pee Wee Madison or Buddy Guy, Sammy Lawhorn (guitar); Willie Dixon (bass); Francis Clay (drums). Originally Chess single 1895).

• "Short Dress Woman" (1964) - Recorded October 1964. J.T. Brown (clarinet); James Cotton (harmonica); Otis Spann (piano); Pee Wee Madison, Sammy Lawhorn (guitar); Calvin Jones or Jimmy Lee Morris (bass); Willie Smith or S.P. Leary (drums). Originally Chess single 1914. Previously unreleased on U.S. album

So those songs weren't all recorded at the same time with the same personnel. As you probably know, Muddy's bands were ever shifting. And there are many recordings on which the personnel is disputed or unclear. I've never read anywhere that he "had" to accept another guitarist. He always had at least one more guitarist, like Jimmy Rogers, Buddy Guy and Johnny Winter in the 1970s.

Hope this helps. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have any of these books: King of the Delta Blues: The Life and Music of Charlie Patton, Fahey's Charley Patton, Chasin' That Devil Music: Searching for the blues, Deep Blues: A Musical and Cultural History of the Mississippi Delta or The Big Book of Blues: A Biographical Encyclopedia? Regards.--

_T^C_N

15:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Of those books, I only have Deep Blues: A Musical and Cultural History of the Mississippi Delta. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am asking because I want to bring

_T^C_N

16:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if you have the desire or time

But there appears to be a bug in checklinks with regards to finding youtube links that are dead. The two that were tagged at death panel weren't dead. If you get a chance, maybe that could be reported. If not, I can do it later. You can reply here I'll put it your talk on my watchlist thanks. Jesanj (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the youtube links. They freeze my browser so I can't look at them. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you can take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sportsfan5000/Adam_Windsor I am trying to get someone to help edit it that knows a little about professional wrestling, but more than anything is a good editor and article reviewer. I am myself not great at using wikipedia, so not sure if you can help, or at least put me in touch with someone that can help?--Sportsfan5000 (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Replied here [1] Good luck! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and also the review. I will continue to try and find people to help the article to get better. Would you be able to publish the article for me to the main article space (Adam Windsor) and also redirect (Adam Bryniarski) to it? I would much rather an administrator get it published and then it can keep on being worked on from there. I have looked at many articles on pro wrestlers now and this is far more in depth and has a lot more references and citations than a lot of them. Any reason why the article would have been deleted previously should be completly covered by now with all of the major edits and if I can find people to help me keep adding to it then I think it will keep going really well. Let me know if this is possible. Thanks for all your help! Sportsfan5000 (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it. Is there anyway that you can also help me get rid of the speedy deletion? I have contested it, however I think I need more help from someone than knows about speedy deletions. Compared to when this article was first deleted there are numerous improvments and I am also requesting help from the sources that you suggested to work on the article. Sportsfan5000 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I read your comment, if you could help me move it back into my userspace I will continue working on it from there. I personally can't see why it doesn't fit the citation and reference guidline, however I will keep on searching for editors to help me get it to where it needs to be. Like you said, it may be better that I work on it from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan5000 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

HI. Thank you for this. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		It is with the greatest admiration that I award you this barnstar for completing Good Article reviews for the December 2011 Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive Cheers, AstroCog (talk ) 22:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! Very much appreciated. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh no need to be. I thought it was cool I was recommended, it means I'm doing something right. I do have a request though, I'm working on the

19:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the person to ask about infoboxes! The best I could do would be to find one to copy. Sorry! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Kinda what I'm looking for, I wouldn't be able to create one but I'm sure one that would fit the single elimination tournament idea exists somewhere I just don't know where.--WillC 04:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew. Thank you for offering a review of Doc Adams. I responded to your comments at Talk:Doc Adams/GA1 and did quite a bit of editing to the article. Please let me know if anything else needs to be done for GA standards to be met. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again! Giants2008 (Talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It was a pleasure! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

00:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I see that you're making quite a few edits on

) 19:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I always check the talk page first to make sure. Besides, the bot was adding a malformed "Hold" - A blue Note and then visible code - not like the other "holds" on the page with the pink image. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Maybe it is a bot problem that should be discussed on an appropriate talk page then. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew. Just though I would let you know that you can't change the bot by changing the

No. The parameters were correct on the Talk page. I checked. I saw this happen on another article a few weeks ago. Neither of the articles were one's that I'd reviewed. Both were correct on the talk page. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If note is before status the status is included in the note. The only way to fix it is to alter the template like I did above. AIRcorn (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

ok MathewTownsend (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, you've given me some good things to think over pre-review (whoever ends up doing the review). I just pinged an editor who worked on a review of the parent article, so hopefully he'll have some good ideas, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the dead link.

) 19:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, however it was the wrong one. It should have been Dan Leno - the article. I cant think why I added this instead. I will be adding Dan Leno tomorrow at some stage. -- Cassianto (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's ok. No big deal. Dan Leno looks interesting! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll sit out the peer review as per

WP:PR and then I'll list. All the best! -- Cassianto (talk

) 15:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

ok, the article looks like a good one. Great topic. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Matthew, it took me 4 noms but it finally did it. It was a pleasant surprise to get on today and see it had been moved over. Now I just got 11 more to go.--WillC 04:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the copyedits! :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 11:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew, I've made the changes discussed in the GA review, and I think the article is ready for you to take another look at it again. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten and will get to it shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 

) 14:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks oyasumi! It was a pleasure. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What copyright issues are you talking about? Most of the so called "copying" are from quotes that have been duly referenced. So how can you fail a GA Review? Let other editors decide that. Having said that, if there are some copyright issues, then a copy edit can surely be done. But failing an article is not the answer. smaro! 04:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've labeled in the article the two sections that are copyvio. Please rewrite those sections in your own words. (And make sure there are no other instances of copyvio, as my browser couldn't load several of the citations. After you do that, nominate it again for GA. I think the article is good and was disappointed to find the copyvio. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cinebasti is not a reliable source. I have written the entire article myself, especially the two sections that have been labelled as a copyvio. Cinebasti has lifted the article directly from the Wikipedia page and not the opposite. Thanks. smaro! 05:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mathew, this is just to let you know that in defending myself at AN/I, I mentioned your name (as one of the victims of the mass revert by User:Montanabw). I hope and trust I mentioned you only in a neutral or positive light. Sorry about this, best regards. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, sorry your work got reverted in my mass revert of JLAN's stuff. It was unclear if your review was of JLAN's edits or the article as Dana submitted it. I could not sort out which was who's. My position was that Dana's draft was stable, and that any changes needed to occur by consensus (based on your review, in particular) I did not mean to interfere with your work or refer to what you were doing as "vandalism." My concern was solely that JLAN was harassing Dana (for about the fifth time, I think) on one of her GA's, and one I previously had nothing to do with, so clearly he wasn't just firing off another salvo in our own ongoing set of disagreements. Sorry you got caught in the crossfire. Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I got caught in the "crossfire" because my role in the GAN process was dismissed and overridden by your revert. Justlettersandnumbers was not engaging inappropriately in the interview process, from my point of view. Often editors other than the nominator offer suggestions or make edits. There's nothing wrong with that; in fact it's encouraged in the GAN instructions. Your unilateral out-of-process revert is what made the article unstable.

Where or not you thought someone was harassing Dana, your revert was an inappropriate way to handle the situation and was destructive to my review. Why didn't you contact me instead? I can't understand such behavior or such a dismissive attituide toward a GAN reviewer (me). From my view, there is no rational reason for the revert. It is not for you to decide what the "stable" version is for GAN purposes. Please read the GAN instructions and learn the roles of reviewers, nominators, and other editors; I urge you to refrain from disrupting GAN anymore.

GAN is a genuinely nice place to edit wikipedia, and I would hate to see that changed. I've reviewed fifty something GANs and never experienced anything like your behavior. GAN got caught in the crossfire. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, JLAN did properly note that I reverted your stuff with his. And I'm sorry about that. But please note that I have been a wikipedia editor almost 6 years with several GA's to my own credit. I do in fact know the guidelines, and it wasn't you I intended to revert. When I saw the edits JLAN was making without Dana around to defend or review the material, I couldn't really sort out if you were working off his edits or hers, and I didn't have access to the source material to evaluate it, so just did a revert to the nominated version, thinking in good faith that I was helping YOU because it would give you a "clean" article to review (your edits fell in-between two sets of JLAN's). Based on what JLAN has done in previous articles with inserting unreliable sources, POV sources, or tendentiously sticking to a source beyond what it actually said (not seeing the forest for the trees), particularly because he is simultaneously "not helping" another article I think Dana wanted to prep for GA, I DID consider his work to be questionable. I would hope you also have never before experienced anything like JLAN's consistent pattern of disrupting almost every Animal-related GA Dana has brought forward in the last several months. I think he really is out to get her -- note: this one:

"This was originally nominated due to stability issues, but the nominator [JLAN] was partly responsible for causing the instability...As this looks like a disruptive nomination and no solid arguments for delisting are presented I am closing it as keep." My timing was poor, but someone needs to look at this fellow. Montanabw^(talk) 00:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• You are completely missing my entire point. If you don't see what was terribly wrong with your dismissive behavior toward me and the disruption you introduced into the GAN process for your own purposes, then there is nothing I can do. It is not helpful to try to justify wrong behavior. The fact that you are as experienced as you say makes it more inexplicable that you think your behavior was justified. Carrying baggage from other places and foisting it into a review I'm working on is not right. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I am having trouble understanding your point. I DO hear that you are angry at me and feel dismissed. And I am very sorry you feel that way because it wasn't my intent. I was actually trying to help by giving you a clean version of the article as it was actually nominated. But I kindly ask that you see MY point: I consider what I did to be very close to a vandal revert -- JLAN's edits are usually about 20% useful material and about 80% OR, often containing unreliable sourcing, usually some heavy POV, and consists of what appears on the surface to be good research, but on closer examination is often not. Anything he adds has to be carefully checked out because it cannot be trusted. You could not have known any of this, and perhaps I should have talked to you here first, but given that all I did on the article was revert once, which JLAN reverted back not long after (calling my edit "vandalism" which got him warned on his talk page by an admin). So I see no real "disruption" -- but it sucks that you and Dana were caught in the middle of it. And that is why I took JLAN to an ANI, where all this can be discussed properly. I see you are friends with Worm That Turned, maybe he can help us communicate better. Montanabw^(talk) 15:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Montanabw, you say, "I was actually trying to help by giving you a clean version of the article as it was actually nominated." What????? Think about it! How could such behavior "help" me? Did you ever think of communicating with me? Didn't you think I had the ability to evaluate the content of the article without your "help"?

I'm not interest in hearing any more of you justifications which you have repeated on multiple places over the last day or so. That you feel "JLAN's edits are usually about 20% useful material and about 80% OR, often containing unreliable sourcing, usually some heavy POV, and consists of what appears on the surface to be good research, but on closer examination is often not" etc. etc. is irrelevant to me and to my evaluation of this GAN. I am only interested in the Large Black (pig) article and not a history of your battles with editors. You had never even edited the article in question before your reverted.

I understand that you think you are justified in inflicting your view on others in a disruptive manner. As you know, since you say you are an experienced editor well versed in the GAN process, reverting as you did renders the article unstable and makes it eligible for a "quick fail".

You could have voiced your concerns properly in multiple ways. If you had specific complaints about edits to the article or the way I was reviewing it, you could have recorded them on the GA review page, on the article talk page or on my talk page. Or on the GAN talk page. Or you could have worked on the article yourself with your own knowledge and use of citations. Your job is not to "enforce" a particular editor's version. No "emergency" revert was called for. You didn't have to resort to disruption of the GAN process to make your point. I can't see any justification at all for what you did, and then worsening the situation by involving the GA review in long ANI postings. I'm mystified by your behavior. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Worm to help us sort this out, but he's going home for the day. So let's give it a rest for 24 hours. If what I've posted makes no sense to you and you refuse to accept my apology as it sits, I've done all I can do. Maybe Worm can sort it out, he seems like a good egg. I'm not evil. I wish you understood that. Montanabw^(talk) 17:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mathew, Pesky here. I'm really hoping that Worm will be able to help out here, he's a great guy and will do his best. Montanabw is a good editor and a good teacher, and though JLAN can do some great work, it's not always great for the reasons MTBW mentioned, so it can be a bit disconcerting suddenly to find a heap of edits on an article being reviewed, when one of the authors isn't available to check anything. Specially if it's happened before. I do understand your frustration here, and I do, of course, understand the way it could look "at first sight" – but first sight is necessarily lacking in insight based on historical performance / troubles with some aspects, like OR, and DUE, and POV. I gather from the way you've worded things here that you've been really upset / annoyed by this whole thing, and I understand that. Where you say "I can't see any justification at all for what you did, and then worsening the situation by involving the GA review in long ANI postings. I'm mystified by your behavior", well, without knowing the history, and knowing that the pile of edits was done by an editor who very frequently needs a second and third pair of eyes in order to keep on policy, I can see that would be hard to understand. Bear in mind that Dana was apparently not available to do that checking herself at that time, which would obviously have been the ideal situation, and Montanabw was basically "babysitting" the article until Dana could get to it herself. Do you understand it a little better now? Hopefully you do. Please try not to get "cross" with any of us here, remember to

assume good faith about Montanabw's actions, bear in mind the eleven-months history providing the reasoning behind those actions, and accept her apology for having thrown you off-balance. (and be gentle with me, too, I'm fragile!) (>**)> Granny-hugz to you; this will blow over, these things always do. Pesky (talk

) 05:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reply to Pesky:

• it can be a bit disconcerting suddenly to find a heap of edits on an article being reviewed, when one of the authors isn't available to check anything" - well, I typically edit an article many times as I review it. No one has gotten upset before or interfered in the midst of it. Many reviewers do a lot of edits. The point is that there is time to review everything. There is no emergency!!!
• "Bear in mind that Dana was apparently not available to do that checking herself at that time, which would obviously have been the ideal situation" - ??? It is not "ideal" for the nominator to be editing while I'm in the midst of a review as there is a risk of edit conflicts. It's nice if they are responsive sometime later that day or the next, but not necessary. Most of the time the nominating editor isn't on line during the review. (Or if they are, I'm unaware of it.) In any case, nothing was happening that couldn't have been dealt with during the review process. Reviews can take days or even weeks. No decision would have been made without Dana's input. At least seven days would have to pass without hearing at all from Dana before there would be a possibility of a decision being made with her feedback. And I would ping the nominator first.
• "Montanabw was basically "babysitting" the article until Dana could get to it herself" ??? - aren't there rules about ownership of articles? Are you aware that anyone can edit a GAN article? That is one of the wonderful aspects of GAN - that there aren't ownership issues.
• " Do you understand it a little better now?" - no, "babysitting" an article (battleship mentality) is against all GAN practices.
• "remember to
  assume good faith
  about Montanabw's actions" ???? - altho Montanabw clearly wasn't assuming good faith when she reverted? And has continues to fail to AGF on my talk pages, and elsewhere about another editor?
• "accept her apology for having thrown you off-balance" - no, she didn't apologize for the issues that upset me. She apologized for reverting my 9 edits and completely ignored my point that the 9 edits weren't the issue. She did not respond to my explanation of my concerns. this what you consider an apology? Rather, she used the occasion to describe how awful the other editor was. She ignored my concerns. And I see from Worm's talk page that Montanabw still doesn't get it and continues to justify her behavior
• I know she could have handled things better, but we (as people) are allowed to make mistakes - I'm hoping that she wouldn't do a mass revert like that in the future. - she has made it clear how experienced she is as an editor - six years or something on wikipedia. If she hasn't learned decent behavior by now, when will she? A new editor would be blocked for for what she did.
• Is anyone anywhere going to get through to Montanabw that what she did was inappropriate at best? Is everyone's goal to defend bad behavior?
• Inquiring minds want to know. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mathew. Hope all's going well for you. I'm looking into the whole JLAN/Montanabw issue at the moment, trying to get to the bottom of it, and work out the best solution. Good news for you, as you shouldn't need to worry about it any more hopefully! Montanabw shouldn't have made that revert, it was wholly inappropriate, and she has apologised for it. She is looking at a larger picture though and I'm hoping to help out there. I know she could have handled things better, but we (as people) are allowed to make mistakes - I'm hoping that she wouldn't do a mass revert like that in the future. If you don't mind letting it go and moving on with the review, I'll keep in mind your comments about her behaviour with regards to whatever solution/final comments I put forward. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm done posting here, but must say one final bit. I have tried to explain myself and cannot get through to Mathew. Pesky tried and apparenly she can't get through either. Worm, Mathew listens to you, I'll let you sort it out. Ping me at my talk if there's something more I can say that would be helpful. That said, I have to comment on Worm's thoughts. I think he is making good suggestions and being quite respectful to all. I do have a small objection: my revert was not "wholly inappropriate" -- it was made in haste, yes, it was made out of frustration at JLAN, yes, I probably should have counted 10 and just filed the ANI without the revert, but it was a truly good faith attempt to protect the work of an editor whom I deeply respect (and has taken many, many articles to GA and FA) against the work of an editor who has given me ample reason to distrust both his research and his goodwill. (and has never taken an article to GA or FA, only tried to derail them, and every attempt he has made to derail others has failed.) At the moment I made the edits, that day, I really felt JLANs edits were a form of vandalism; I believed him to be stalking and hounding Dana. I decided to file the ANI rather than continue to fight over that article. I left JLAN's revert of my edit alone. (Will anyone give me credit for that?) I fear Mathew assumes that I am a bad and evil person. I'm not. I apologized for upsetting him and really have no clue what more I can do that does not involve some sort of gesture of abject humiliation or appeasement, which I do not consider warranted. I'm done here. Montanabw^(talk) 02:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to nominate the image we discussed at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hadji Ali if you wish to participate. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Encyclopedic value. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Worm^TT · (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I replied at my talk page on the Chinese Indonesians and Signpost images. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Culver Academies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russell Lee (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) 10:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mathew Townsend. I know you have been very busy, but when you have time could you revisit your GA review on this article? Kierzek and I are at an impasse as we do not know what you think is still missing from the lead in particular and from the article in general. Thank you. --Dianna (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes! I will. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew, this article provides some detail on one of the cancer drugs derived from the Madagascar periwinkle: Vincristine Lemurbaby (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew, this is just to let you know that I have uploaded a restored version of the image nominated at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hadji Ali. This notice is being delivered to you as you previously voted / commented at the nomination page. BTW, I will be pretty busy this week (moving house) so I'm not sure if I can do much at the Signpost. Saturday hopefully I can get it started if you haven't yet. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I will give it a look tomorrow. Today will be crazy. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your excellent work copyediting and reviewing articles for GA. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. And I appreciate your suggestions and input on Madagascar, kind of an overwhelming article! So much to cover. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you still want this to go through a community reassessment? These are the current changes since the green dot was added and it looks stable enough judging from the talk page and article history. AIRcorn (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on the GAR page, and I think the article is fine now. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Bruised but not broken...

Sorry you walked into a mine-field at the pig GAN, but don't hold that against Dana (or myself or any other Wikiproject Equine editors). Most of us really don't like conflict or dealing with it, and would love for you to continue to review our articles. (Although I think I'll point out you probably want to stay away from my pre-1066 bishop articles... (grins)). I should have a pile of bishops and horse stuff going up at GAN in the next few days... you're input is always always welcome! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the encouragement. Who would've thought over pigs! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Make sure that the URL you're posting isn't http://www.webcitation.org/mainframe.php; make sure that it ends with a group of numbers and letters (e.g. http://www.webcitation.org/65YUybz9A). Check your Email. The URL address for the archive should be found in the Email that WebCite sent you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

ok, thanks. I got an email from them. I see the right url is in the citation now. http://www.webcitation.org/65YUybz9A Your help is appreciated! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have asked User:Trust Is All You Need for an interview this week as s/he has done much work on Soviet politics. I will be in Bali for a seminar until Friday, so I don't know how much internet time I'll have. I've already started the page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be willing to fill in, especially if you help me out with some questions to ask. Also, any clues can give me ask to format, etc. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, I can handle the interview. Just letting you know in case there gets to be a backlog. We have a huge number of FLs this week. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• No problem. I'll do whatever is needed. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps trimming the featured lists' summaries would be useful. Most FLs are fairly short, yet the summaries you have are longer than the ones for FAs! I'll trim the Eric B. discography for an example. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• ok, I'll wait and see what you do. I don't like doing the FLs because it's hard to know what to include! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• LOL, we ec'd Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, since we do the FC section we could probably tie an interview in with the featured content process. We could ask about some main differences between FA and GA, how some articles nominated for GA better qualify under FL, and some differences in how the programs are run. We could also learn a bit about the editor's interests and what drives him/her. As for the length... I'd say six is okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've been reading around various places (like the arbcom and different talk pages), and it seems like GA is a relatively trouble-free place. It also seems like Geometry guy is "Mr.GA", although he doesn't seem to actually create much content. But he has a soothing, benign view, I think, and since wiki is having a problem with editor retention (allegedly - hard to know what to think - that NPP report didn't make much sense to me), I'd like to know why GA seems to work (relatively speaking) and I think he's had something to do with that. (I agree the the project reports are very interesting and enlightening.) (I could interview you as you contribute greatly to GAN. How about that?) MathewTownsend (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind, but perhaps next week or so. This week I'll be busy (at the seminar right now... I'll be a speaker tomorrow). Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• For the Hadji Ali picture, the promoted image was the edit. At FPC some nominations have edited copies uploaded under different titles for comparison, like at the Hadji Ali nomination or the blue and white bird current at FPC. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Anything published in the US before 1923 is in the public domain, so it is free to use. If an agency is asserting copyright over a PD image, it's copyfraud... i.e. unenforceable. Speaking of the images, usually the promoter indicates which image has been promoted in his/her summary. Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, they tend to keep an eye on the writeups. Don't just copy the lede, but look for key points in the lede for our (even shorter) summary. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• For the claymation picture, are you sure it's a Finnish advertisement? Reading the source, it looks Russian. Also, not sure what context it is used in. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think the images are fine. We shouldn't only choose featured pictures, naturally, and I think your choices were pretty good. I was considering that Claymation image for FPC, but without more context it's difficult. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Now I can't track down where the heck I found that. So we should probably go with the animated series caption. "Clay animation by Max Sviridov Studios: Characters from the Kuzmich animation series" from the Commons description. Somewhere I found out it was Finnish, but who knows where I found that! Which one is the Claymation image? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• The one with the two lumberjacks. Claymation -- Clay animation. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm being too Canadian, sorry. This. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Never mind, you have it fixed. I must be getting distracted Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As I stated at Maggie's talk page, it is inappropriate to continue conversation there. You should not have replied on her talk page. This is concerning. As a WMF staff member, she is restricted by law to participate or even look at the content. Mathew, I am uncomfortable with your manner of reviewing the article. The assumptions and accusations have been inappropriate. Ask questions. Don't accuse. I never stated that your review is being made in bad faith. I stated that your opening remark was made in bad faith and inappropriate. You didn't ask me if I wrote it off-wiki, but you asked me where it came from. And no, the article didn't spring into life on February 10, but in July, as I told you. You could have also checked the date yourself. There is a better way of communicating your concerns. As far as the Signpost, I never rely on the Signpost for interpretation of policy or guidelines, but review them directly. The Signpost is merely opinion of various editors. I would recommend that you review and point to policy and guidelines directly with editors, rather than point to the Signpost.

You stated on Moonriddengirl's talk page that you "pointed out this instance of odd language in the review: "The family lived financially conservative, yet never seemed to run out of money by the third week of the month, due to his mother's talent at stretching a meal." I asked what you meant by "lived financially conservative" combined with the "yet never seemed to run out of money" - the two clauses seem to clash, and "lived financially conservative" isn't really grammatical. I suggested alternatives and asked what you meant. You refused to change the wording and the odd language remains in the article.

The above statement is completely lacking in reality.

In reality, you questioned the content, "The family was rather conservative, with neither parent developing a habit of smoking or drinking." Changing it to "The family was rather conservative. Neither parent developing a habit of smoking or drinking." The first version when stating "rather conservative" was qualified with "neither parent developing a habit of smoking or drinking." Your change introduced additionally introduced an incomplete sentence. That said, I completely revised the content to "The family lived financially conservative, yet never seemed to run out of money by the third week of the month, due to his mother's talent at stretching a meal. Her son's favorite dish was a casserole using a mixture of onions, celery, rice, and mushroom soup over ground beef," since you were uncomfortable with it. The term "lived financially conservative" is grammatically correct.

I appreciate Derrick's contributions and manner of interaction. If you are unable to function without continually referring to your mentor, you may want to reconsider your involvement in the GA process. Again, while I welcome your participation, if you are uncomfortable or unable to proceed, please consider requesting an official second opinion. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've completed 74 GAN reviews without my mentor and all the nominators have been pleasant. I haven't encountered the problem I'm having with you before. None of the other nominators have been hostile, accused me of bad faith, criticized my overall judgment or created a bad atmosphere. None have asked for a second opinion. The only time I consulted my mentor regarding a GAN was when there was suddenly a revert war in the middle of a review I was completing. I received a Copy Editors barnstar just recently. During a GAN review drive, my reviews were vetted and no problems found.

I thought you asked User:Dcoetzee for a second opinion. He could take over the review. Or you can ask for a second opinion. Or I can fail the GAR and you can renominate it and start over. I would prefer to just fail the article and you can carry on with a new reviewer. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I seen that the review failed because of multiple lists? There are multiple lists because either; they fall under different categories shops, theaters, rides. or they are ride lists that are located is separate sections of the park. how do you suggest that the list should be re-organized to meet a pass?--Nickvet419 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem. The

embedded lists. I believe the thinking is that such articles should try for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates because the difference between a good list and a featured list would not be that great. You could ask at the talk page of Wikipedia:Good article criteria and might get a different rationale. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk

) 21:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

moin Mathew, thanks for your great contributions to the upcoming news and notes :). i proposed to combine the two current main stories, because they are heavily interlinked and (hopefully) there is some additional stuff to be added later. please take a look, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just now am seeing this - I replied on your page. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks Mathew. we are obviously in different time zones and you already had some words with Skomorokh. i replied on his talk page to centralize the discussion, best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I've noticed U're a very avid GA reviewer and we've come across in some of those. I am very impressed with your work and I would like you to take a moment to check this article: Don 2 for any copy vio and WP:MoS problems. Thanks :D --Meryam90 (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm probably not up to a film review at the moment, though I like to do them. I'm a little burned out over copy vio issues. If I get a chance I'll look it over. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, I was wondering if you'd be interested/have time to read over William S. Sadler and point out any obvious issues you can see. It was just passed as a Good Article, but there may be some lingering prose issues. It's a pretty interesting case, not as over the top as Hensley though. Speaking of whom, the Featured Article nomination for Hensley got archived over the weekend--they do that if there are no supports for three weeks (even if there are no opposes. Thanks for all your help on it, we'll probably renominate in a few weeks. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll look through William S. Sadler. Where do you find these people!

I was watching the Hensley article, and I think that there wasn't quite enough info in it - not enough to explain his beliefs and the snake handling etc. I appreciate that there's just not much available information - the fact that he didn't personally write anything, but the article remained somewhat disjointed. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It was funny, I happened to see someone randomly mention The Urantia Book at the reference desk a couple weeks ago and started investigating and found it pretty interesting. Sadler's article was a real POV mess when I got to it, I think it's definitely moving in the right direction. There really is a lot of information about him, so if it sounds incomplete I don't have an excuse to leave it that way... On that note, interesting to hear your thoughts about Hensley though. I wonder if that was my fault or the sources fault. Oh well, I'll read it over again before renominating. I just got my first featured article promoted this afternoon, though, so that was much needed good news after seeing Hensley fail. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies Mathew, I think I may have edit-conflicted with you on News and notes just now. Pleas feel free to re-add any changes still needed. Cheers, Skomorokh 21:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I'll look it over. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, the above is now listed as a FAN. Are you in a position to give it a review? I would love to know your thoughts on it having improved it further... (Oh! and I'm also keen to shake off the embarrassment at having submitted the discog a few weeks ago). All the best! -- Cassianto (talk)

• I actually peer reviewed this article a couple weeks back and found it a thoroughly enjoyable read, so if you have time I would suggest you take Cassianto up on the offer. (Although I'm not sure what a FAN is, I think it's at
  GAN now). Mark Arsten (talk
  ) 00:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Hi, I left you a comment on the signpost talk. There are several ways that individual editors have a voice into what the WMF does. Comments on and getting involved in specific initiatives (software features, programs, etc) are always important; you can follow specific RfCs on meta (for instance the recent terms of service, or this funding discussion); if you are truly interested in foundation affairs you can join foundation-l; and we are trying to make it easier to submit proposals for fellowships, grants etc so that individuals can sway what directions are focused on in these areas. There is also a proposal on the table to open up funding review decisions for the whole of Wikimedia to a community-based committee. There is always room for improvement and ideas like this; the main problem is it can be hard to keep up (but I recommend the WMF monthly reports if you are curious what the WMF does). Regardless... the WMF tries hard to keep the perspective of individual editors in mind, and many of us come from the editing community. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions and I appreciate that you took the time. For the last week I have been wading through WMF and related pages, and frankly I'm exhausted and not in a good mood. The amount of bureaucracy and "WMF speak" - seems like terminal vagueness and nothingness. I would never comment on an RFC on meta, as I saw some very nasty comments there so it seems a little risky. I'm not familiar enough with the politics there to avoid stepping into a mess! Thanks anyway. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, getting started in meta-activities by wading into the fundraising discussions is a bit like getting started on Wikipedia by getting involved in arbcom deliberations -- it's neither the most pleasant nor the most clear part of the project, and I can't really recommend it :) But I do hope that you don't take that as reflective of everything that goes on in the meta- and WMF- space. Really, WMF, chapter and meta activities tend to appeal to those who are interested in governance or in-person projects -- if you are interested in global collaboration, bringing Wikipedia to classrooms, events, policy-building etc there is a lot of really cool and fun (and non-hostile) stuff that is going on. This round of fundraising/funds-dissemination talks are grounded in a very long historical debate, involve a few main players (the WMF and the chapters that handle money, mainly) and are probably not that exciting for others. The philosophical principles at play are probably interesting to those not intimately involved in the debate -- i.e. should our organization be highly decentralized, and how should we make funding decisions? -- but I think that the bulk of the argument so far has been over issues that are not highly relevant to those not involved, i.e. who explicitly handles money. And what the finance meeting did, I thought, was among other things remind us all that we want the same goals -- healthy stable projects and to support the editing community. It wasn't really intended as a decision-making forum but rather as a place to talk over issues first. Best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Who? Name names. The frustrating part (most frustrating part) is that everything is so vague. All in the passive voice. Never is an actual information revealed. What's going on? I think it's like the Wizard of Oz -- someone is behind the scenes pulling the strings! It's creepy. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a different poster, if possible. I'd much rather not have pictures of the Klan Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

ok. I keep thinking

Wikipedia is not censored! MathewTownsend (talk

) 00:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• True enough, but I prefer that that apply only to articles. Also, the Klan seems to bring out strong reactions (Yes, I did retouch that image, and yes, it made me sick every minute). We're not going to put the full 10-minute version of A Free Ride on the main page, are we? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Where I live it's not a big deal for blacks or whites. But I appreciate that some areas of the world still have issues. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• It may depend heavily on the readership... African-American readers will almost definitely protest against images of the Klan, cross burnings, and lynching. As an alternative, the poster for Gone with the Wind is free. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Where I live Gone with the Wind is offense to blacks because of the maid thing and because it enshrine the white southern woman and southern "manners" business. I don't think you'll find blacks watching the film. But, whatever. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Fair enough. Hmm, I'll try and see if there is a good free poster. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Deep Throat is discussed in the article... but I doubt we want that. Argh. I guess The Birth of a Nation will be okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, remember wp is trying not to be sexist! Hence Wikipedia:Teahouse! The good thing about removing the Birth of a Nation poster is that it leaves more space for others - it's so vivid it steals the show. That's the bad news too, since there just don't seem to be much image choice this week. We had several weeks of outstanding images, so it's kind of a let down. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• There should be some nice ones by Sunday... like the one at the top of this page, hehe. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting to see this discussion come up now. I saw that picture of Hiram Evans you worked on and decided to start working on his article. Something about that image intrigued me, it's odd how he looks like a regular guy in an odd costume--but was actually a pretty vicious fellow. (He tried to get the clan to move away from torturing minorities, but more out of public relations concerns than actual human decency.) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• well, you seem to have a special talent if you can get Prosperity theology to FA! Admire your ability to balance. You can probably do it for Hiram Evans. We need that kind of thing, IMO. Things aren't (pardon the expression) black or white, the way I see things. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be able to do the text for that article. I salute you, Mark. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks Mathew, I'm actually a bit surprised at how well Prosperity theology went. I anticipated more POV pushing when I got involved there. It will probably be easier to improve Hiram Evans than it would be to work on an article about a contemporary extremist group, not too many people out there pushing a POV about KKK members who died 50 years ago. It's not that hard for me to write about Evans, since the Klan lost most of its members under his leadership. I guess I sorta have an interest in the grotesque, although not as much as the guy who got Hanged, drawn and quartered up to featured article. That would probably be too much for me. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• There aren't a lot of articles that I would refuse to work on, but off the top of my head I recall saying that I wouldn't contribute to
  Campaign for "santorum" neologism on the grounds that any publicity they get is too much. Mark Arsten (talk
  ) 04:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Never heard of Is Anyone Up?... kinda wish I still hadn't. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, pretty much the way I feel too. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, that should be fine. Historically I tend to get these things earlier - and cover them earlier - but that's more because of the demands of N&N than anything set in stone. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• How's it look now that I've added a line break? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's fine. I had removed the center in order to avoid the white space, but having it centered looks better. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Alright. I also added a blurb on the featured picture of a clothes iron, so it shouldn't be too image heavy now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good! (I kinda like that iron picture - too bad we can't use it!) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah. Shame it's so tall. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if you wanted to be involved in this or not, so i'm a little late in informing you, but there is a new peer review up for Cracker Barrel that is focused on the FA criteria. If there's anything you think could be improved in the article, feel free to let me know in the peer review. Silverseren^C 19:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew,
I've just posted the article on Prime Minister Rainilaiarivony, husband of the last three queens of Madagascar, at FAC here. Your comments would be helpful. Although it's a level four Vital Article, I suspect the PM's name alone is going to put a lot of people off from looking at this and offering their supports or opposes! Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rainilaiarivony FAC is not attracting comments, as I anticipated. If you would take a moment to either support the nomination or provide some concrete suggestions I can address to bring the article to FA level I would greatly appreciate it. It's always such a pity when good articles (and especially Vital Articles like this one) have to be run through the FAC mill several times simply due to lack of reviewers or lack of interest. Thanks for supporting the improvement of Madagascar coverage on WP. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The January 2012 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the distribution list. GRAPPLE X 00:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You're not the first person to not "get" templates - I just keep including it becasue it's such a powerful tool. If you'd like to chat about it more in future, then we can, but for now, shall we move on to the next lesson? I've included the answers to questions 1-3 on the page by the way. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice Featured Content work at The Signpost! Tony (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys!

Thanks to all of you who have commented on the

. If you haven't had a chance yet, check it out; we're discussing some pretty interesting ideas, both from the Foundation and the community, and moving towards implementing quite a few of them :).

In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

cherry blossoms

.

• Metrics are out from week one. Week one showed that the need for Teahouse hosts to invite new editors to the Teahouse is urgent for this pilot period. It also showed that emailing new users invitations is a powerful tool, with new editors responding more to emails than to talk page templates. We also learned that the customized database reports created for the Teahouse have the highest return rate of participation by invitees. Check out the metrics here and see how you can help with inviting in our Invitation Guide.
• A refreshed "Your hosts" page encourages experienced Wikipedians to learn about the Teahouse and participate. With community input, the Teahouse has updated the
  Your hosts
  page which details the host roles within the Teahouse pilot and the importance that hosts play in providing a friendly, special experience not always found on other welcome/help spaces on Wikipedia. It also explains how Teahouse hosts are important regarding metrics reporting during this pilot. Are you an experienced editor who wants to help out? Take a look at the new page today and start learning about the hosts tasks and how you can participate!
• Introduce yourself and meet new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. New & experienced editors to Wikipedia can add a brief infobox about themselves and get to know one another with direct links to userpages. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, they'll surely be happy to feel the wikilove!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username

) 16:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind, I'm still working on it.

) 20:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you have five days to add references. Just start by adding

biographies of living people. It's very important that you add them quickly. MathewTownsend (talk

) 20:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I guess you're just being cautious. Generally I tend to write something then add references afterwards (but forgot to include the {{

talk

) 20:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear that! But at least one those references just goes to a general page.[3] MathewTownsend (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, it's taking me to the epaper, but with a dialog box showing the story. Not sure why that is.

talk

) 21:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it takes you to a page requiring a subscription to see the article (at least for me). MathewTownsend (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I got to it through

talk

) 21:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

well, if you're absolutely sure what the article says, you can cite the subscription page and put (subscription only) after it. Also, you could consider archiving it at Web Cite, if it's available to you now. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's going to work as I'm also seeing a general web address, so I think WebCite will just archive the page you and others are seeing. I have thought of briefly uploading a screenshot just to prove it exists, but somehow I don't think that would be allowed. :)

talk

) 22:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can scan it, or somehow preserve a copy so you can provide it by email to anyone who questions it, that should work. Lots of times people use a book or some other off line source not available to others. So I don't see how this would be different. Even if you kept a screenshot for your personal records, that would be better than nothing. People assume good faith regarding off line sources. If you keep a copy for yourself, then if anyone needs a quote (say to be sure you are not engaging in OR or misinterpreting), you would be able to provide it.MathewTownsend (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a screenshot of it now so that should be ok. I've managed to archive web address, but as you'll see it hasn't retained the content. But this will definitely be useful for other stuff, particularly things such as AP links which can go stale after a while.

talk

) 22:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess newspapers are really guarding their content! That site is great though, and almost all sites are able to be archived there. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've managed to upload a version to Tinypic here, although I suspect it may be deleted before too long, but at least you can see it did actually exist. :)

talk

) 00:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't read it - too small. It's not that I doubted you! You know that! :) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I know. Apologies if my last posting made me sound like I did. Cheers for the help with the WebCite stuff, by the way. I shall be using that quite a lot now. :)

talk

) 00:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Some good news on the Irish Times link. Somebody managed to find the original article, though I'm not sure how he actually did it. I've also managed to archive it with WebCite. Viewing it seems to work best for me via Chrome as I can't get it to focus in Explorer. Was getting a bit vexed the other day wondering why nobody else could see it apart from me, but at least it's there now. :)

) 13:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That's great. Is that a scan of the article? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. Could be, I guess.

talk

) 14:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to load out of focus, then clicking on the text makes it readable. But that only works in Chrome. Strange one that. :)

talk

) 15:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it did that for me too, and I use Firefox, but clicking it made readable for me also. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Must be a bug with Explorer then as I tried it for about five minutes without success.

talk

) 15:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you think Maria Ulfah Santoso would be worth nominating for GA? It's fairly well developed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. It has some oddities, like shouldn't "Reception" be perhaps "Legacy"? (I feel horrible today, due to the "setting the clock ahead" thing we do in the US. So biological clock is screwed up.) How do you manage to be so prolific? MathewTownsend (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I luckily (for the encyclopedia) don't have a social life. Mrs. Crisco doesn't like me hanging out with women, and almost all my friends are female, so... Needless to say, today (since both my students cancelled on me) I spent all day in front of the computer. I think Mrs. Crisco only puts up with it because Wikimedia Indonesia has paid me to do stuff before.

As for daylight savings, I never was that bothered by it when I lived in Canada. Just had to remember to set my alarm. Here on the equator there's no need, as the days are roughly the same length. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

well, you're doing a lot for Indonesia here. You've upped my awareness and I enjoy reading your articles even if I hesitate to step in and review them! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• And yet I rarely translate them to Indonesian -- :-/ . When I do, the results are fairly nice (the Indonesian versions of Sitti Nurbaya and Belenggu are featured articles, with Chrisye, Atheis, and Poedjangga Baroe well on the way. Glad you enjoy reading them... many won't give them the light of day. Mind you, Ucu Agustin seems pleased we have a nice article on her (she even contributed a picture!)

Alright, I'm off to sleep. BTW, thanks for all the work at Signpost. Working together we put some pretty good stuff together, methinks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Nightie night! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

So, how did we do on the Sacrifice copyedit? Do you think the prose shines yet? It's good to have backup like that when I'm copyediting, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I intend to look through it more today. Just don't have the time right now. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I wanna say thanks for the copyedits from both of you. Its very much appreciated, as I hope to get this project done thanks to it.--WillC 18:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Education report is very much intended to cover both real life and on-wiki activities. There will indeed be some emphasis on the English Wikipedia, but other languages and Wikimedia projects will be covered as well (as is in fact the general scope of the Signpost, which does serve the broader Wikimedia community also). As to the specific issue of the

) 12:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dave recommended you for asking questions about Good Article criteria and quality. Do you have the time to give a quick opinion on this article i have been working on? Thanks Jenova20 16:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jenova, I think the best way to learn what is involved in getting an article to Good article status is to look at some cars that have passed the Good article test. e.g. Chevrolet Volt and Brabham BT49 are two I could find. That's the kind of article a GA reviewer will be looking for. Be sure you understand the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Best wishes and good luck, MathewTownsend (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those two, i'll start studying them! =] Jenova20 09:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Guerillero | My Talk 22:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Steering Committee/Ambassador Recall Process

Hey all!

Thanks to everyone who attended our first office hours session; the logs can be found here, if you missed it, and we should be holding a second one on Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :).

In the meantime, I have greatly expanded the details available at

: there's a lot more info about precisely what we're planning. If you have ideas, and they aren't listed there, bring them up and I'll pass them on to the developers for consideration in the second sprint. And if you know anyone who might be interested in contributing, send them there too!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the radio silence, guys :). I just wanted to let you know that we're planning on starting a new round of hand coding, which you can sign up for here. This will be the final round (honest!), and is basically because we found some really interesting results from the last round that blew our collective mind. It's important to check that they weren't a fluke, though, and so a bit more work is needed.

If you have any questions, drop a note on my talkpage - and if you know anyone who would be interested in participating, please tell them about it! We'll be holding an IRC training session in #wikimedia-office at 18:00 UTC on the 21st of March to run through the tool and answer any questions you may have. Thanks! :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for all the good work you did on the Assassination of William McKinley article. It is very much appreciated. Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! It was a pleasure. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

	reviewing eyes
	Thank you (again) for reviewing Noel F. Parrish! If you have time please turn to the PumpkinSky CCI, 7 left of 729. I have been labelled an "absolute supporter of the copyright violator" and would live happier without that. Quoting you: It has been stressful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That's over, now we have a new story, the Great Dismal Swamp maroons (yesterday's Main page), in case you missed it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Good work! Very nice article. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please tell the author also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping forward to review it for GA! I decorated the top of my talk with it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying some feedback at

) 18:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, but I don't feel I know enough (am expert enough) to comment intelligently. I'll try. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please volunteer to lead the meeting! Leave a message if you can help.

The March Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting will be on 21 March 2012 at 20:00 UTC. We will have updates from countries around the world and Ayush Khanna will present some results of data analysis he's done on students' contributions. Instructions for joining are on the page linked above. I hope you can join us on Wednesday! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk)

Hi. When you recently edited

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, just to make sure you see it - can you please respond here also I noticed you never tried to resolve things with Cindy outside of the public forum here which may be a good venue to get some of the bad blood out between the both of you. Epistemophiliac (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  here
  .
• I will automatically remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please
  ask an admin to turn it off here
  .

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:George Went Hensley preaching.JPG

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  here
  .
• I will automatically remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please
  ask an admin to turn it off here
  .

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

• News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts

• Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again

• WikiProject report: Lessons from another Wikipedia: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas

• Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting

• Technology report: Bugmeister to leave at end of May, but developers keen to "chart" a path ahead

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Large Black (pig)

Thanks for your (extremely patient!) review of that article Mathew. Have a nice day, Steven Walling • talk 16:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry it took so long, as it slipped below the radar. I think the article turned out well! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

DragonFly BSD

Hello! You've placed a {{citation not found}} in this edit on DragonFly BSD article. Could you please explain the concern you wanted to highlight in this edit? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been having a conversation on Template talk:Sfn, in which I was assured that when I got that error through a user script, I should enter {{citation not found}}. However, I'm beginning to think there's something very wrong with the script and will remove it. Sorry for upsetting you. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be some kind of bug then:

WP:CS2-compliant footnotes instead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk

) 21:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

yes, I've disabled it. Again, I apologize. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no problems! BTW, thanks for your copy edit! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

fyi, Ucucha's updated the script to generate fewer false-positives. You should re-enable it and look again. It is important to understand just when it is appropriate to flag with {{citation not found}}. There's more on my talk, ATM. Alarbus (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks, I've enabled it again with no problems so far. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

help triage some feedback

Hey guys.

I appreciate this isn't quite what you signed up for, but I figured as people who are already pretty good at evaluating whether material is useful or not useful through Special:NewPages, you might be interested :). Over the last few months we've been developing

the new Article Feedback Tool

, which features a free text box. it is imperative that we work out in advance what proportion of feedback is useful or not so we can adjust the design accordingly and not overwhelm you with nonsense.

This is being done through the Feedback Evaluation System (FES), a tool that lets editors run through a stream of comments, selecting their value and viability, so we know what type of design should be promoted or avoided. We're about to start a new round of evaluations, beginning with an office hours session tomorrow at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to help preemptively kill poor feedback, come along to #wikimedia-office and we'll show you how to use the tool. If you can't make it, send me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org or drop a note on my talkpage, and I'm happy to give you a quick walkthrough in a one-on-one session :).

All the best, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I don't use IRC, being a believer in transparency. But thanks. Best regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole IRC meeting (and future IRC meetings) are logged, btw. And published onwiki afterwards, I should think. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, but why can't discussions take place on wiki? A lot of editors aren't comfortable with IRC, and it's not really under the control of WMF or en:wp, is it? MathewTownsend (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:George Went Hensley preaching.JPG

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  here
  .
• I will automatically remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please
  ask an admin to turn it off here
  .

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not orphaned. Stop it, bot. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A couple of barnstars

		The Worm That Turned Adoption Course Barnstar
		Congratulations on finishing the course! You've done very well, and I'm sure you can now carry on as a great editor! I've certainly got now worries.WormTT · (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

		The Adoptee Graduation Barnstar
		MathewTownsend, consider yourself a graduate of Worm That Turned's adoption. You have been an excellent student, and have a very good knowledge of policy. You're always welcome to come back to me for help, but I think you're ready to face the big wide world of wikipedia! WormTT · (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. You've clarified a great deal - put the information in perspective and enlightened me. I'm beholden to you!

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Erratic Wikipedia

There was a little database maintenance - that may have been the cause of your problems, although it wasn't suppose to affect anybody. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 20:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you're still experiencing it? Ill try to find a performance engineer and ask them about it. Whereabouts geographically are you based (country-level is enough, or continent if you'd prefer)? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 20:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Countess of Chinchon

If you want to nominate File:Condesa de chinchon.jpg, feel free. I'll support. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For all the copyediting on Hensley. The FAC seems to be going better this time... I just reviewed Georg Solti at FAC, it was brilliantly written--made me realize how much lot of the writing around here could be improved. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Including the above comment "much lot", gee, I sound like a caveman. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a follower of User:Tony1's school of writing. Best advice on writing anywhere! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree. I wish more people would pay attention to his advice. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look at Sadler. Any thoughts? I'm trying to strike a really neutral tone, not easy though. It's a bit shorter than I would like it to be, but it's tough to find good sources on the guy. He never really misbehaved (except for promoting eugenics) so he hasn't gotten that much attention. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• My initial impression is that it's somewhat like George Went Hensley, a lot of detail that doesn't quite explain. Like with Hensley all the descriptions of moving around from place to place doesn't doesn't explain his message or power. Here, I haven't looked at it that closely, but again there seems to be a lot of detail that doesn't seem to enlighten. At times it's confusing whether Sadler and his wife did everything together; were they a team? But I like the article. Don't worry about length! How do you come up with these guys! Extraterrestrials! Fascinating. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• You know, I like that you don't blow smoke up my ass. But yes, they basically did do everything together, which reminds me--I didn't mention her involvement with the UB or her death. Hopefully I'll be able to put it up for peer review soon and get some things worked out. FWIW, I have no clue why anyone would listen to Hensley or Sadler. I wish they could have met--they only lived a couple states away from each other. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• FYI, I have a peer review open for Sadler now. You're welcome to join in on the fun. Sorry for posting in the middle of the page and making you search for this, I really hate when people do that. I didn't want to start a whole new section for a little notice like this though. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the

[majestic titan]

02:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Lesbian kisses

I was trying to show how the film is historically significant. Note how in all our previous signpost articles we have included historical context. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm absolutely against that. I agree with Tony1 the FP are not the same amount of work as FA and FL. Their descriptions should not be used to expand on information that has nothing to do with the technical aspects of the picture, certainly not hyping the image with talk of "lesbian kisses" which are not shown in the pic. If people want to know more they can read the "related article". If this is an issue, I think we should solicit more views from other Signpost people. (I've like Featured content because it didn't do that kind of thing. If we do "promotional" wording, I think we should concentrate on FAs and FLs.) When FP descriptions are longer than the others, something major is wrong. My view anyhow. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've changed the information included (and the FP blurbs are only four lines, as I've always had them). To be honest, the FA blurbs seem a little short. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• If you are against lesbian kisses being included in the blurb, okay. However, we should allow readers proper context for an image. We shouldn't show them an image of a bird and then just say "This is an Emperor Penguin photographed in Antarctica". They should learn a bit about the penguin as well. Don't forget, the purpose of featured pictures is to draw readers into reading the articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, I disagree. Lots of times the "article" for the featured picture looks just thrown together - not very good. I don't think the purpose of featured picture is to get readers to read the article. The article hasn't been vetted in any way. It may not even be accurate and certainly isn't in any way complete. Featured picture should educate readers about pictures - not a way to sneak a superficial article in to bring it to the reader's attention. If you want to add some process to vet the related article also, then ok. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• If you just quote verbatim the image's description at FPC, you will end up with a single line for each file, which will look terrible. That's why I touched it up. Are you saying you disliked all my write ups, including the FA ones which I do when I am awake and you haven't gotten to them? (Note that both yourself and the promoters are 12 hours or so ahead of me, so it's not often). Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Come to think of it, all your write-ups so far are shorter than usual. The Rihanna list warrants four to five lines, and FAs six. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) No, I'm not saying at all that I dislike your write ups. I'm saying that featured pictures are about the images. They should serve to inform the reader about the image, not promote articles that are often sub par, so superficial and poorly sourced that they couldn't even be a GA. FAs and Fls are listed because they have gone through a vetting process. To promote an article that hasn't been vetted is not "featured" in any way is against the spirit of "Featured content". Educate readers about the specifics of the image, what had to be done to get it featured, etc. There's no assurance that the articles "promoted" through featured pictures are even accurate or reliably sourced. Really, the feature article candidates should be vetted more thoroughly than they are. Often the captions have no citations and are of questionable accuracy. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) The write ups for FA and FLs aren't finished. I just started them so they are not complete. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We ec'd. I've put mine in, revert to yours if you think its better. Do you want to do the Capcom Five blurb? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Lesbian kisses? Where? You know that any mention of sex in the byline will double the hits on FC that week. I've got data to show that! OK, call me superficial and mercenary. Tony (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• There's no need to bow out. I like most of the work you do with the Signpost, and the idea to bold the titles was great! Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Try Googling something before you remove it. Have you bothered looking for "Whistler's Mother iconic" in Google? One of the first hits you get is Whistler's Mother: an American icon. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No. It must come sourced in a Wikipedia article. You can't expect readers to have to google to determine the veracity of a statement. It should be vetted through a wikipedia article. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• You're changing the rules willy-nilly. You said you were going to bow out: do it, and save us both the stress. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I changed my mind because of comments made that I was an asset. Also, I can't stand by while unsourced material is introduced. You don't own this section and I'm allowed to change my mind. You're just used to no body really checking for accuracy. Maybe this will encourage you to properly vet information in the FP process. That's where this should take place. Arguing that the reader can always google is wrong. You can find anything to support a point of view by googling. Just because there was a brief period when it was well known doesn't make it "iconic" today. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Very good way to defuse a problem, thank you for the apology. As a compromise, I will cite a sentence regarding it being iconic (a double cite) in the article. Full citation for a blurb that only 500 people will see is a bit much, however. Generally, FP-related articles receive clean-up before going to the main page, although not to featured article, GA, or even DYK quality. The focus is on the images, which makes it a completely different process (BTW, several editors have replied to your question at
  WT:FPC) Crisco 1492 (talk
  ) 00:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that Featured content contain cites. I just don't believe it is these days considered "iconic". I bet most people today have never heard of it. I'm American. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oh no, I cited in-article. To reply to your question on my talk page, I just added it to Whistler's Mother (proper formatting takes a while, especially on a slow connection). Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Diff. Note that both cites are from the past 20 years.

Although this may be original research, I'm thinking most readers would recognize the image if they saw it (even without knowing the title). Similar to American Gothic... Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Original research is wrong. You have a low opinion of our readers if you think you can pull the wool over their eyes. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Which is exactly why I am not putting that statement preceded with "this may be original research" anywhere outside of this talk page. Regarding truth vs. verifiability, you may be interested in this essay, regarding that. It's an odd aspect of our policies, I'll admit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

We had paintings in the bottom spot last week. I was going to put Whistler's Mother and the fireworks at the top, but you put the flower there and I agree it's a nice picture so I didn't want to remove it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Like this:

Signpost writeup

The Bolo article looks nice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• K, I have to go eat. If you want to use the images as above for the lede (with a blurb) and the flower below, I have no objection. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just to let you know, you linked the wrong image (you linked to the fireworks). I've fixed it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! :) MathewTownsend (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS on joint attention article

Mathew Townsend,
Thank you for your comments on the Joint attention article. The students are working on adding the ISBNs etc. Aside from the format of the references, could you let us know if there other aspects of MEDRS that you were concerned about? Paula Marentette (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-26/News and notes

moin Mathew, thanks for your help. as always really appreciated and in this week, were we have to manage without ResMa, especially. i would like to look at two questions:

1) why are the bid by volunteers to hold the wikimania 2013 in naples, as such publicly documented since october last year (and they didn't got backup by the city, the chapter or some sort of institution this week (afaik)), and the wmf jobs, advertised all year round, notable this week?

2) if i'm trying to frame the RfC as the last episode of the wider controversial content debate (the label used for every sub-debate centered around files that are problematic in terms of law, etc. somewhere (not necessarily the U.S.)), a.k.a. "saga", wouldn't it be better to still write _the_ saga and change the second part of the sentence instead? alternatively we could figure out a different terminology.

all best, --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You should write it up the way you think is right. I am only just now becoming aware of things that happen on meta so I don't know what is important and what is not. I'm always amazed how little we wp editors are aware of what goes on at meta. Also I am not sophisticated in my understand of the the image "saga". I rewrote it a little to help my understanding, but my words may not be the best. You have a clearer idea of where you're going with the story! Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks Mathew, these are sound points. i expanded your entry on job openings a little bit to provide an additional "news context" alongside the general informative value and added a stream of previous signpost coverage to the lead story to give a better idea of the "saga" background, king regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse metrics

Hi Mathew,

Saw your question on the Teahouse Hosts' lounge re: metrics. Wanted to let you know that I just posted them! Let me know if you have any questions, or if there's anything else you want to see. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 00:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Too late for this week's Signpost but they can go in next week. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

• News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music

• Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed

• Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature

• Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.

• Technology report: A busy week: Git switchover, mobile site upgraded, and still time for three security releases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking for some advice

Hey, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on something. On William S. Sadler and Hiram Wesley Evans I structured the articles more or less the same way, including a section on their views/ideology. Do you think I should leave the views in a separate section or get rid of the "views" section and try to integrate its content into the rest of the article? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• P.S. Hensley just passed FAC, thanks for all your help with that one--I think you have over 50 edits to that page! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations! I've already got it listed in the next issue of "Featured content". I'll answer your above questions regarding "view" after I have time to ponder. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, take your time, I've still got a few ideas bouncing around in my head about the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the best wiki biography writers (mostly political) is Wehwalt. Looking at some of his FAs, he seems to weave beliefs/views in the general narrative, e.g.:

• Richard Nixon
• Albert Speer
• Nikita Khrushchev
• Mark Hanna
• Woodes Rogers
• Rudolf Wolters
• Abdul Karim (the Munshi)

That way the person and his "views" are presented as part of a whole, not separate categories. So I think I would work toward some sort of integration as much as is feasible. Hope this helps. (I'd have to read the articles more closely and see how he does it!) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• • You know, I think you're right. After someone reads through the narrative of his life, they may not stick around to learn about all the details of his opinions--plus having them in-text might explain things better. I have a couple ideas, I'll ping you back when I get around to it. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thx for the praise. Yeah, you can't make it a bare bones narrative, I think people want more from a bio. And yes, including the views in the text is one way. Basically, I'm trying to write with no loose ends. You can always ask me, I may not be able to explain, but I don't mind trying.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Dirty Picture

Thank you. :) The film is indeed very interesting.

talk

) 04:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for the review of La Blanca, Peten. Much appreciated, have a beer on me! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'll enjoy it. And your article was well done, so easy for me. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

No problem on the blurb. Is there a reason why you are not a rollbacker, btw?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. What is rollbacker and what good would it do me? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACK.--Wehwalt (talk

) 22:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that I should have "rolled backed" you? (There is a little "rollback" when I go to revert and such. Does that mean I have it - although it says you have to ask for it and I haven't?) And what's the advantage of ROLLBACK over the other options? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I was not suggesting it with respect to the blurb. I have a script that tells me what userrights someone has when I view their user or talk page. I was surprised you did not have it, that's all. It isn't considered any particular honor, you may find it useful. It can be helpful for one click to rollback vandalism, especially when the servers are a bit slow. No big deal either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Grass Mud Horse/GA1

This GA review is now the longest outstanding review at 42 days, and there has been no action on the review in four weeks, with no significant editing to the article itself for longer than that. Can it be concluded in some way? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The nominator User:Ferox Seneca had indicated to me that he needed more time. However, I can review it now, and let the chips fall! Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the review you gave, I think it'll be for the best; it looks like there's a lot of work yet to do. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've been thinking I should get around to doing the review, so thanks for the prod. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Thanks for your work in tagging articles for WikiProjects. It happens that hospitals are no longer within the scope of

WP:MEDA about which projects do what for medicine-related articles if you ever need it. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 23:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

ok, thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Signpost request

Do you think we could include The Dog? It seems to draw a strong emotional response Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's the one I'm thinking of - YES. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Goya? That's the one! :-D Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• See User:MathewTownsend! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Got your point. Nice! Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I was thinking we should either trim the picture of Keri Hilson or the butterfly. I just viewed the article on a large screen (1366 * 768 as opposed to my usual 1024 * 600) and there's a lot of whitespace Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Random acts of baking

Some stroopwafels for you! All your great contributions are not going unnoticed, believe me. Regards, Dianna (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

• Interview: An introduction to movement roles

• Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal

• News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief

• WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

• Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case

• Technology report: Somewhere amongst the endless discussions about Gerrit lie details of hackathons, performance blips explained and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update

Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding

• Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
• Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism;

NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here

.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Rosenberg

I just revised the lead (after I got an oppose based on a shoddy lead), how do you think I did? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for the help on the lead, your latest changes seem ok to me, hopefully Brian will agree. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking care of the king business, your lead edit looks ok. Brian has struck his oppose, and I think I can see light at the end of the tunnel. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited

Dioscorea macrostachya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yam (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) 14:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

fixed! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)