User talk:MathewTownsend/Archive 8

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Failed GA
Hi Matthew. I'm a bit puzzled by the failure on Talk:Illecillewaet Glacier/GA1. I made changes related to your comments here, and left comments at the nom, but did not hear back from you. At this point I'm not clear on why it was failed. Maybe just a communication error? The image copyright is complicated, and we're waiting to hear back from the Smithsonian on its status (it's pretty much an "OTRS pending" situation.) From your initial review, I thought we were close :( The Interior  (Talk) 04:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry. There was a misunderstanding. I'll reply more extensively on your page.  MathewTownsend (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Glacial GA
hey, thanks! (I don't always know what "buttons" I can use!) MathewTownsend (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nor do I. But the world would be a far better place if we could emulate your good example, look at the instant replay, do a  and grant a do over. The replacement NFL referees would have benefited from your wisdom and proactive approach.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please help to establish notability of the minister from Nigeria you just posted. Just being a minister from Nigeria does not mean the subject is notable. Please review notability guidelines, and then write examples into the article with inline sourcing to external and reliable sources. Happy editing Standard2211 (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok for Daniel Ajayi-Adeniran. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter
Hey again all :). So, some big news, some small news, some good news, some bad news!

On the "big news" front; we've now deployed AFT5 on to 10 percent of articles, This is pretty awesome :). On the "bad news", however, it looks like we're having to stop at 10 percent until around September - there are scaling issues that make it dangerous to deploy wider. Happily, our awesome features engineering team is looking into them as we speak, and I'm optimistic that the issues will be resolved.

For both "small" and "good" news; we've got another office hours session. This one is tomorrow, at 22:00 UTC in - I appreciate it's a bit late for Europeans, but I wanted to juggle it so US east coasters could attend if they wanted :). Hope to see you all there!

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update
Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome.

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Schloßborn
How do we know that Schloßborn is probably (!) the oldest recorded settlement? - We don't know a record of an older settlement. Until we find a so far unknown record of something older, it's the oldest. How to say that? How do we answer your question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * that's original research, imo. There are all sorts of records we don't have. Who is the "we" you are talking about? You need a reliable sources stating that, not just your conclusion or an ambiguous "we".  MathewTownsend (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Five pillars
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Five pillars. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments/Changes await
The Interior (Talk) 21:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ok, will do. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience with that review, Mathew. I've got a lot on my plate right now, and it took some time to get things up to spec.  Best to you,  The Interior  (Talk) 21:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:File mover
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:File mover. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Columbian half dollar
I'm reading that you prefer not to be involved in GA at the present time, so have closed and relisted the GAN. I am grateful for your help with the article and hope you will check in on it when it comes time to take it to FAC. All the best.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ok. I'm so sorry. Thanks for letting me know. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

English
or lack of it: "be dogged" - what does it mean? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

ps: I performed a refreshing clean-up on my talk and enjoyed your barnstar especially, a keeper, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Gerda, "I'd be dogged" is a polite Southern way of saying "I'd be damned". At least, that's how it's usually used. Doc   talk  13:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Gerda, that's completely wrong: Don't know where Doc9871 gets that. (Made it up?) According to the dictionary it means: "to follow or track like a dog, especially with hostile intent; hound." (though I don't think you, Gerda, have hostile intent.) MathewTownsend (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not completely wrong: it's just not what you meant. It's a very widespread expression, really. Note that my first-ever post to this talk page back in January was to inform you, Matthew, that you were being dogged by a banned editor. Sorry for butting in - won't happen again ;P Doc   talk  13:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec, both) Hard to understand, certainly not intended, neither damn nor track. - "Polite": you (Doc9871) know that I was told . --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyway, good news, you did that well, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!
Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Iridescent
Continuing to post at that talk page when you have been asked not to do so "unless you have something to say that directly concerns [Iridescent]" is not helping anything or anyone. Please leave the matter for now. BencherliteTalk 22:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Just so we're clear
If you post on that page again (having been asked twice not to), or make personal comments about TK again, I will block you from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ok, but Truthseeker88 continually posts about her personal problems at Today's featured article/requests etc. Perhaps you could ask her to stop getting into personal details on a page that is about nominating articles for the main page. Sorry about her personal concerns, but ... MathewTownsend (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop it. Now. BencherliteTalk 22:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Mathew please post diffs. All of them. And then I'll respond. And even better, please bring the fight to my page. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. Do not post diffs, instead stop talking about it. TK, I'm trying to end this, but if you ask for diffs, it's hard to end.  Better it just gets dropped, yes? Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Tired of the whole thing. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The "secrecy" of my email to Truthkeeper88 appears to have distressed you. I wouldn't mind telling you what was in the email - it wasn't personal - except I'm sure you would then go try to get me in trouble for publicly voicing unproven suspicions. If you'd like, I can email you and tell you what I warned her about, but I don't want to hear you claim afterwards that I am harassing you by email or something; I'm offering to send you one polite email describing my concerns about you, I'll copy an ArbCom member so they can verify it wasn't abusive, and Checkuser would be able to verify if necessary that this is the only email I send you.  Is that what you'd like?
 * By the way, it appears TK88 did not take my advice, and is continuing to talk to you and treat you with respect instead of ignoring you. Her reservoirs of good faith run much deeper than mine.
 * And please stop calling yourself a newbie; you've been here at least 11 months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * great to know that you were voicing suspicions about me, and thanks for the failure of good faith. That's pretty much what I've experienced from the old crowd. No thanks, don't want your email. Rather that you keep your bad thoughts about me to yourself (and of course others that you choose to email.) I sent one email to an admin and she distorted it publically at a DR and tried to made it seem like I was doing something bad, so that's pretty much what I expect.  The fact that I don't understand the code that you all speak in isn't my fault. I haven't publically tried to get anyone in trouble, but only you know what's in that email.   MathewTownsend (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a newbie anymore
Feel free to update yourself to Yeoman Editor next month, or if you prefer to go by edit-count rather than period of service, go ahead and replace this with Veteran Editor II. Welcome to the cabal. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. You may even be surprised to learn that you have more edits than I do. Worm TT( talk ) 15:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Chin up, Mathew. You've got an impressive legacy on the site. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Your revert on my talkpage
I noticed (only because I had a "new messages" bar) that you removed a posting by White Cat on my talkpage. I'm not certain why you removed it. Please let me know if it was an inadvertent misclick, or if you saw something seriously wrong with that post. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * yes it was a misclick. My mouse seems to have acquired some new functions that it employs unexpectedly. Thanks for not immediately jumping to the conclusion that I am a bad person, as seems to be common around here. I'm sorry for the misclick. I don't know anything about White Cat. I've never removed a post from any page. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand completely; the same thing has happened to me a couple of times. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about email
Hi Mathew, in case you didn't see it, I left a very detailed response here on my talk about your concerns. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What difference does the past make it make if the article is clean now? Don't get it. Probably every FA has been hit by sockpuppets or whatever. If the article is good now, why should readers be deprived of it? What good does it do to rehash the ugly wikipedia past? We all know FAs have been screwed up. It's the dawning of a new day; do we have to go through the muck of the olden times? MathewTownsend (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk page requirements
If you want to refer to something I've said, I'll request that you quote me exactly, with diffs. This is in accordance with WP:TPNO, which says, in part, "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: Be precise in quoting others." I never said anything remotely suggesting that "edit history" doesn't count, and I do not wish you to misrepresent me in this way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been following the TFAR situation, and I am sufficiently concerned about your involvement in it. Would you mind toning down the rhetoric, and assuming good faith, and not assuming that everything is a conspiracy? Thanks. --Rschen7754 21:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

}
 * sorry if I misrepresented you. Since you refused to clarify on your talk page, I'm left to guess what the heck you meant. Please remember that not all of us are oldbies, so stating your comments more clearly would help. Or are you only speaking to the oldbies? I'd appreciate more clarity in your comments. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want me to clarify something, talk to me politely. When I am volunteering, I have discretion to choose what I do. I do not respond to innuendos and veiled accusations of bad faith. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In spite of your tone, I have attempted to clarify what I'm talking about at my talk page: here. If you have further questions, you're welcome to ask them there, so long as your conversation remains polite. It will also be helpful if you don't assume that I have full context of what you're talking about. The extent of my involvement with this article has taken place in my talk space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"Newbie"
You've been here for almost a year now. Continuing to insist that you are a "newbie" being purposely left out of the "old crew" isn't helping you anywhere; if anything, you're creating a self-fufilling prophecy by poisoning the pot against you. Like any regular company or website, everyone has their own institutional memory&mdash;for example, I've been here since 2006, yet I have no idea what MRG and Truthkeeper are talking about. So, in short: please stop. Your attitude got old a long time ago. Thanks in advance. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * yeah I'm sick of the whole thing. My personality has changed since I started here. As long as I was a work horse, everything was fine. But the first time I ventured an opinion, my comments distorted, I was personally attacked, etc. ok, that's wikipedia. But the oldies are treated better; they defend personal attacks on me and they never apologize when they're wrong.  It's not worth being a work horse that's not allowed an opinion.  MathewTownsend (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. I'm a volunteer also, and I started out with a good attitude. But of course, Moonriddengirl and Truthkeeper are more important. I've stopped reviewing GA's and pretty much stopped editing articles and cleaning up. Not worth the abuse. It comes from a nasty few, but nonetheless as they tend to follow me around to make their points. Ugh!   MathewTownsend (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, treating all older editors with bad faith won't endear you to, well, anyone. Might I suggest addressing your own attitude before blaming others? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What Ed said. Comments like this in which you assume some conspiracy and launch yourself in the direction of the worst possible interpretation of MRG's comments (which were about the history of the contributor not being trustworthy, not the article's edit history) endear you to nobody. If you're finding that people are constantly misinterpreting your comments the problem is possibly with your comments - and with how you communicate. As a wider issue I've noticed you regularly interpret the statements of others incorrectly, which (as Ed said) ceased being something defensible with "I'm new here!" a long time ago. Ironholds (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The Moppet issue
Mathew, in the interest of disclosure, I was asked to talk to you about this issue with ‎The Story of Miss Moppet being at WP:TFAR and related issues, see User_talk:PumpkinSky. I see you began editing in Nov 2011, so may not be aware of my background. I was once an admin, crat, CU, OS, and arb. I mention this only because it means I've dealt with a lot of private info in my wiki life and know fully well there are often private and legal reasons for decisions being made that simply cannot be revealed in a public forum. There have been enough allusions made here in this case here that I can tell this is a significant factor here. I was also involved in the Halloween 2010 issues, which involved CCI matters. Two people have asked you to stay off their talk pages already. Please trust me on this, you don't want this to blow up on you: a) you don't want to be part of a CCI/TFA mess and b) the privacy and legal issues. Either alone is plenty of reason to let this go, so please, for your own sake, just let it go and stop beating the horse. There are other reasons, such as ItsLassieTime is a serial sock and bigtime plagiarizer where we need to be extra careful. As Iri said, ""preserve all history" and "delete all copyvios from the history""--you can't do both. You do some good work here, I recall your GA review of Noel F. Parrish fondly, which is where we've previously had the most interaction. Pumpkin Sky  talk  00:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that would be wise, Mathew. We all lose our cool from time to time.  The thing is to move on.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * yes, for a while now I've decreased my activity here because of the unpleasantness (hence I never got around to reviewing your GA) and I'll decrease it more.  MathewTownsend (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't mean leave or become less active, just move on from this particular issue. Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is the way you are interacting with other people; you can't put it on everyone else. In real life, and on Wikipedia, the times when I've thought "I'm right and everyone else is crazy/incompetent/whatever" have always been the times right before I've fallen on my face and made a fool out of myself. --Rschen7754 20:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to increase your activity, and if you want to review the GA, it's available.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't feel free. I've been threatened with a block for things I don't understand. I'll not edit anything to do with potential or current articles for GA, FA, FAC, TFA or any review processes. Best wishes,  MathewTownsend (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Notification that Miss Moppet has been sent to FAR. [Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Story of Miss Moppet/archive1]. This is a place for the community to chime in and frankly I think your perspective would be useful. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Homunq/WP voting systems
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Homunq/WP voting systems. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Natchez Massacre FAC
Hi Mathew- since you did the GA review for Natchez Massacre, I wanted to know if you'd like to comment at the article's FAC page (I nominated it for FA at the beginning of the month). Thanks. Jsayre64  (talk)  01:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd love to, but it's not safe for me to do so. I'm very sorry but I'm not able to do reviews anymore. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Just a note, but you've been mentioned here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks, I finally figured it out that he was referring to this thread. Not only is this the reason I've given up reviewing and basically editing articles on wiki, but the example of that editor led me to believe that I could speak more freely on wiki than is obviously the case. Thanks for letting me know. I'm sure I'm not the only one that editor has driven off. He has other editors protecting him. While my "personal attacks" are [redacted], his aren't. His are left to rile me up and demean my contributions. So what's the use. I'm giving up. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And I just saw this. I very highly recommend that you ignore her. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Portland Bight Protected Area, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingston (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) 16:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus
Don't let Malleus chase you off the website. I'll do whatever I can to make sure he never bothers you again.--MONGO 00:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Hi, MathewTownsend. Please don't do anything else like. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. --Dianna (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, he wasn't changing the meaning exactly, that was the original barnstar. Worm TT( talk ) 09:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologise. -- Dianna (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. It was changed by the original poster to be less pointed, then reverted by Malleus because he had already added this:
 * Perhaps the real problem is know-it-all schoolkids like you, who in reality can't even tell their arses from their elbows. Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs you
Saw your comment on the ArbCom request. Understand you got embroiled in some fracas involving FA / Beatrix Potter. (I've just been skimming through applicable portions of your, Nikkimaria, SilkTork, Pumpkin Sky and Iridescent's talk pages.) Editors engaged in the GA FA process tend to care deeply about Wikipedia and article quality, and sometimes the human element isn't handled as well as it should be. Unfortunately, the civility pillar is the weakest and most problematic of Wikipedia, not because of the actions of any individual editor, but because there's never been consensus on what is and what isn't reasonable behavior. Contributing in certain high traffic areas, such as FA, require both content knowledge and political skill and judgement, and edits like this indicate you haven't developed the latter quite yet. All in all, I'm not seeing any malice towards you, just frustration.

This does not mean you can't be a valuable asset to Wikipedia: we currently have a quarter million unreferenced tags that need addressing. We have 3000 articles needing copy editing. I think there's a strong argument that turning one of Wikipedia's current crap articles into something reasonably encyclopedic is more valuable than polishing decent articles to FA status.

With regards to Malleus he's easy to deal with if you choose to. Avoid and ignore. If you see an article he is or has recently worked on, just let it be. If he contributes to a discussion, ignore the tone and focus on the content. If you feel it's on topic respond, if not, just don't. He's not one to hold grudges against specific editors, so you won't have a long term issue with him unless you choose to. Nobody Ent 14:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Notability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Great Stagnation is still on Good Article Review
Hi Matthew,

Just a quick reminder that the above article is still " on review". I'm sorry to see you're leaving Wikipedia, a great loss to the community. Thanks for all your work! If you're still knocking around I'd be delighted to have your experience brought to bear on the TGS article. Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ellerbusch Site/GA1
I'm just curious, but why didn't you ask for a second opinion instead of failing it? Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Alta Airport
Are you still reviewing this article for GAN? --Rschen7754 03:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recruitment policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Recruitment policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

More Miss Moppet
Hi Mathew, I noticed you posted to my page and that someone deleted your post. An update for you. First I notified you that Miss Moppet has been submitted to FAR and I sincerely believe that you are the impetus for bringing to light a mess that needs to be resolved. In that sense I wish you wouldn't beat yourself up and instead I invite you to join the conversation. It's a tricky issue and I think every voice and opinion is valuable. Furthermore, I went to the library today and checked out most of the Beatrix Potter sources with the intention of combing through the pages that haven't yet been scrubbed. This is something that needs to be done, and again I believe you've been the impetus for this. I realize you think you've been badly treated but want to underscore that out of this mess will come a lot of good - and so I have to thank you for that. I'm sorry you believe I've mentioned conspiracies - I don't remember doing so and if you could give a diff I'd happily retract or apologize if necessary. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your post, Truthkeeper. I'm badly in need of a little encouragement. And thank you for crediting me for being the impetus for cleaning up Miss Moppet. I'm glad that you don't consider me part of a conspiracy. If I knew how to "scrub" pages, I would help you out. I apologize if I didn't handle well the avalanche of negative comments I received because I didn't understand the situation. I think I understand it now. Truly I meant no harm and I was surprised at the responses and taken off base. So I especially thank you again for your kind comments and will help in any way I'm capable.  MathewTownsend (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For whatever it's worth, that one thing I learned here, is that often controversy results in a better product. Which makes sense in a strange sort of way. Anyway, if you have anything to add to the FAR, please feel free to make a comment. As far as scrubbing, I've not even cracked open the books (still sitting on my kitchen table), but when I get to the rewriting (which will involve checking for plagiarism and then rewriting / summarizing in an acceptably paraphrased manner) I might need some copyediting help. I've seen you around copyediting and can always use help in that regard. But that's a long time up the road; first we (collectively, because I haven't a clue) need to decide how to go forward. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty good at that so ask me if you need help. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Because they're library books, I'll have to get to it fairly soon, but all the pages on Template:Beatrix Potter need to be checked. It's a very slow and laborious process. Take a look at the pages and you'll see that they are well-presented, well-sourced, and seemingly well-written. What we've found, however, is that much of the writing is lifted directly from the source. There was no way you (or any other editor not involved with the situation) could have known about it, and that's why I've decided to take the time to resolve it - if that's at all possible. I'd ask that we drop the acrimony; life is too short in my opinion and work needs to be done. I'll ping you when I get through some of these. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be very glad to drop any acrimony. Basically it stemmed from my confusion and my lack of understanding about what was going on. I didn't understand the words that were being used nor was I aware of the history. I apologize for being so out of it. And I appreciate that you understand my situation and are willing to forgive and go on. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your post to Nikkimaria's page too. Let's please let it all go and move forward. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had to clarify some comments she left on SilkTork's page, and he asked that we not continue on his page so I had to answer on hers. I'm perfectly willing to drop it and move forward, though my involvement with wikipedia will be much less in the foreseeable future. I have been hurt by the recent misunderstanding. But I'm willing to help you out in any way I can.  MathewTownsend (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew, I started checking sources on here. I've simply deleted everything that's verbatim from the source because I'm pressed for time - and I've shown in the edit summaries why the material is being deleted. The page numbers are all correct and if you think you could adequately paraphrase or summarize that material to put it back, that would be great. Unfortunately it's slow work to check against the books. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)