User talk:MathewTownsend/Archive 9

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Questions/General
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Questions/General. 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) 14:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (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) 15:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
For suggesting that I start working on Church of the SubGenius (and your subsequent edits); it is now a good article. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. Sorry I couldn't help out more. Congratulations on your hard work that produced the GA! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter
This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Free content
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk: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) 16:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Points
How the TFA points work? I am tempted to say: nobody knows ;) - see "Points" on my talk, please. Which article goes when could be talked about in civil argument, if you ask me, and finally the scheduler is free to disregard it all anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you completely. Anyway, I don't think many people understand the point system. There was a disagreement that a biography about the writer Stephen Crane couldn't appear because a review of a book by another author had recently appeared, despite the rules clearly saying the opposite. The clumping of polar expedition articles and star articles shows that the "points" either aren't being followed or aren't understood. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, see my talk again. The points don't show the specific matters of a nomination, words are much better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, the points system is no longer really needed except for tiebreaking between two claimants for the same date. Mathew, I am glad to see you editing again and hope the semi-retired banner comes down soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Maybe I'll get back to reviewing your coin articles soon! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting. I think both the Columbian and the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar articles qualify as "best resource on the web" on them.  There is no hurry.  I don't plan to nominate anything more until both Jinnah and Truman clear the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion
I thought I'd play suggestbot and mention an article you might like to edit: Irving Gottesman. It's up for PR at the moment and I'm reading through it now. He did some very interesting work on abnormal psychology... nothing about DID though, thankfully, lots of stuff about twin studies on schizophrenia and so on. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is so badly written that it never should have passed GA. I feel like I should do a GAR. I'll post a few comments on the PR. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for taking a look. Hopefully your concerns can be resolved at the PR. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia 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) 17:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter
Hey all :). A couple of quick updates (one small, one large)

First, we're continuing to work on some ways to increase the quality of feedback and make it easier to eliminate and deal with non-useful feedback: hopefully I'll have more news for you on this soon :).

Second, we're looking at ways to increase the actual number of users patrolling and take off some of the workload from you lot. Part of this is increasing the prominence of the feedback page, which we're going to try to do with a link at the top of each article to the relevant page. This should be deployed on Tuesday (touch wood!) and we'll be closely monitoring what happens. Let me know if you have any questions or issues :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). 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) 18:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. 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) 18:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators. 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) 19:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Got back to it
Talk:Kīlauea/GA1. Res Mar 21:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work with FC—thanks for stepping in to help! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. 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) 20:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

FC
Beautiful page this week! Tony  (talk)  10:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I left you a compliment at WP:NEWSROOM if you'd like to take a look. Thank you for volunteering your time this week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for adding it in. I just hope that it won't happen too frequently. Seeing how slow it is to promote topics and such. GamerPro64 20:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 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, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The fishy aurora again
Hi, Matthew. I can't make anything of the diff you posted in response to me at the arbitration requests/motions page, not even by clicking around it a bit (it's not actually a diff, at least not in the usual sense). Did you mean to post something different?

Secondly, my point was more to ask if anybody really called it a fishy aurora ("aura"?), before you did. See aurora, and the image I posted.

I realize it wasn't very clear, but hiding underneath there was meant to be a reproach, to do with how we talk to people in real life, versus the things we thoughtlessly say on the internet (presumably because we forget there are real people behind the usernames). "X will always have a fishy aura (?) about her" is no way to talk to a real person (still less about a real person, when that person is listening). It's actually quite nasty. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC).


 * Sorry. Not sure what the problem is. The link works for me. It's a permalink. As I said in my post where I gave the diff, the complete phrase was "fishy odor". (I couldn't remember the exact phrase the first time so I said "fishy" auora. You could also go to the unpermalinked page Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard and use 'find' for the word "fishy". (That works for the permalinked diff also.) Hope this helps. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ticker symbols in article leads
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ticker symbols in article leads. 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) 20:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi. Since you gave comments on articles that are currently listed at WP:PR, I was wondering if you could give some helpful comments to Peer review/Cher/archive1? Thanks, Lordelliott (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. "Self-actualization" and "female autonomy" are the main keys of her influence and legacy. It means that she was one of the first women in the entertainment industry to reinvent herself from time to time in order to stay relevant, and that she paved the way for other singers/actresses to build a career on their own terms, without depending on men. These points are full-covered on the Legacy section and on the first paragraph of the Movies, music videos and live performances subsection. Lordelliott (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * okay, thanks! I'll read those sections. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

One big thank-you
Mathew, - Thanks so much for catching the two broken links on the Mark Satin biography. I am that article's principal author, and corrected both links right away. - Babel41 (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * you're very welcome! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Big Two-Hearted River
Thanks for your review and copyedits on this. Are appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Vidya Balan
Hi. Thanks a lot for your edits on the Vidya Balan page. However, I have reverted one of your edits, because IMO the original sounded better. Cheers. :) -- smaro jit  (buzz me)  13:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

GAN Annamalaiyar Temple
Mr. Townsend,

My apologies for editing Annamalaiyar Temple while you were looking at it yesterday. I was making some very minor corrections and I sincerely did not realize you were trying to edit it at the same time. I am no longer editing and will not touch the article until you say it is okay. In the future, if I am ever in the way please feel free to let me know on my talk page. Thank you again for reviewing the article, your time is appreciated. Ramwithaxe talk  16:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:TFAR
Hello, if you get a chance, would you mind popping back to WP:Today's featured article/requests? There are now two suggested articles for 1st January and I'm inviting input as to which one people would prefer for the day itself and when the other one might be scheduled instead. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 09:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now sorted: Vidya Balan on 14th Dec, her wedding day, and Action of 1 January 1800 to start the new year. BencherliteTalk 11:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Women empowerment
Probably it's just Indian English, but "women empowerment" is what we use here. There's nothing wrong with it. -- smaro jit  (buzz me)  15:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * well, it's not proper use of the English language in other English-speaking nations. Perhaps it is used in Indian English. Is the article written specifically in Indian English? MathewTownsend (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (watching) I searched for it and found it a few other times on Wikipedia, but no occurence of "women's empowerpent", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "women's empowerpent" - do you mean women's empowerment? "Women's empowerment" is found many times on wikipedia. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As you can see in the link that you provided, both "women empowerment" and "women's empowerment" have been extensively used. -- smaro jit  (buzz me)  16:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But "women's empowerment" is used many many more times. And the context matters. In the article Vidya Balan it doesn't sound right. In the search, the first use of "woman empowerment" is actually "Empowerment of women" if you look at the article Empowerment. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We can sit and argue about the statistics now. But the fact is that the term "women empowerment" is not grammatically wrong. Isn't that what matters? The source used to cite the usage of this word ([]) also uses the phrase in this context. So how does it not sound right? -- smaro jit  (buzz me)  16:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. What I mean is that it's not wrong to use this particular phrase. Women empowerment, women's empowerment, female empowerment; there can be so many variations. This point was earlier discussed in the FAC too. -- smaro jit  (buzz me)  15:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And race
FYI. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hawking lists
Are you going to start a discussion about the four lists embedded within the biography Stephen Hawking? You tagged it but I don't see a discussion specifically about lists. There's only some question about the placement and contents of the awards list. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I just did. I was called away for a while just after I put the tag on the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks you! Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need for the tag, as the issue is mostly placement, the lists are properly sourced and appropriate. There is nothing "poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate" about them.  Further, the tag appears to be compromising the potential for this article to become a TFA. I really think that if no one has a problem with moving the one list down with the others and tweaking the subheading title, just do it.  As for prosifying the lists, I don't see how one can, but nothing is stopping you from doing so and putting your suggested change on the talk page; if it can be done, I'd take a serious look at it.   Montanabw (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see SandyGeorgia's and Slp1's on the article talk page on the same matter. And SandyGeorgia's further comments. e.g. "I think FAR in a few months (when FAR instructions allow) is a better option here than TFAR. I'm disappointed that the community if !voting for such an article to appear on the mainpage, and I don't understand why folks do that." MathewTownsend (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you've never actually taken an article through the FA gauntlet, which is generally very difficult and quite thorough. I'm so tired of people who contribute little content being excessively critical to those who do. My own view is that if an FA has a little trouble, then fix it, don't go through all the "drahmah" of throwing it out and making other people do a whole ton of work; if you have the problem, then you fix it. Usually a solid recommendation is well-received. See WP:SOFIXIT  Montanabw (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your bad faith is not helping you. You've already been reprimanded once. Now you continue with your ill faith.

And then once again on my talk page! I've seen nothing to indicate your judgment is good regarding the Hawking article, and your previous intrusions into my business have not demonstrated any sort of skill, writing or otherwise. Do you really think that trashing others, such as SandyGeorgia is going to help you? I suggest you adapt a more mature attitude.

You are just plain wrong about the Hawking article. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mathew, yes, you and I have tangled before, and as usual, you immediately accuse me of being Satan incarnate, and promptly question my motives as having bad faith, and falsely accusing me of doing precisely the thing that YOU are doing to me -- have you ever heard of psychological projection? You're doing it.  Now, once again you are distorting things badly; I've hardly been "reprimanded" for anything above, the person simply wondered if anyone took up the issue with you, and now it has been, both here (which you are mad about, even though it was recommended) and at talk.  Do you really think that your hands are clean when you accuse me of "trashing" others and then turn around and state that I have "not demonstrated any sort of skill?"  I'm not going to debate this further here, as you appear to be taking it far too personally, and I have no interest in beating my head against the wall.  See you at the article.  But when I say "so fix it" -- I mean it -- put your own work out there if you are going to be criticizing everyone else's.   Montanabw (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Montanabu, I'm sorry that you have such difficulty understanding what is going on. Please read the posts more carefully. For example, when you said this:
 * Support: The cn tags are all in one sentence, placed on separate clauses by a user with a contribs history that shows an obvious POV to push- an put there only a week after the article was promoted; apparently the lead editors haven't gone back and cleaned them up. This is an extremely minor nitpick. The TFA is appropriate, and any minor copyediting can and undoubtably will be completed prior to the main page appearance Montanabw (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

the immediate response to your comment was the following:


 * Good faith should indicate that an established user, who says that an assertion is not in the cited source, is familiar with that source. Good faith should also make us reluctant to accuse established users of pushing a POV. Articles appearing on the main page should be free of such concerns. Has anyone active on the article, or this nomination, contacted the user who added the tags? Kablammo (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thus you were gently reprimanded for failing the assume good faith and accusing "established users of pushing a POV." If you don't consider that a reprimand, then I can only think you are accustomed to receiving such comments that you are failing to act in good faith.
 * That wasn't a reprimand at me, that was just a general statement of guidelines. And I believe that right after, Bencherlite popped over here.   Montanabw (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Now you are accusing me of psychological projection and other mumbo jumbo. Grow up.
 * And I'm the one being accused of being rude and not assuming good faith?  Please Montanabw (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia indicates that you misunderstand the FAC process and finds your comments "unconstructive". Read the problems detailed regarding Steven Hawking. In no way does removing the word "Major" fix the problems with the lists. The article will probably go to WP:FAR unless you and others are willing to do more that remove one word Major to "fix" it.

I urge you to read and understand the comments made about Stephen Hawking. Hopefully you will learn how the FAC process works so you can be a helpful contributor. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sandy posts comments that suggest that she appears to think that everyone who doesn't agree with her is stupid. I have no interest whatsoever in what Sandy Georgia thinks, nor do I have any respect for her because I think she is mean-spirited. I've spent enough time at the FAC and GAN process with multiple articles to know that it's total hell for the content contributors who are trying to write good articles, because all you need is someone with an agenda or a narrow POV, or some bee in their bonnet, and an excellent article can easily be derailed, as you did, Mathew, to my good friend Dana boomer.  Montanabw (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And I'm here to remind Montanabw that her "psychological projection" mumbo jumbo is a personal attack. Added to her failure to AGF, and her other inappropriate personalization at Talk:Stephen Hawking, this adds up to WP:BATTLEGROUND.  Stop it.  Now, Montana.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ooooo Sandy! I'm Sooooooo scared of you! If you were aware of the history between Mathew and me, you would see that Mathew has never shown the least amount of AGF toward me and has consistently subjected me to these ad hominem attacks and massive insults.  So really, I'm sick of this whole conversation.  And please, if you really don't want to be educated about a legitimate psychological phenomena, then let me explain it to you in simple terms:  Psychological projection is "twinkle, twinkle little star, what you say is what you are."  Therefore, if you call me stupid and immature, that means that you are the person who is that very thing, but instead you "project" it onto someone else.  We all learned that in grade school.  So, Sandy, my dear, YOU stop it.  Now!   Montanabw (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Montanabw, if you're so sick of this conversation, why don't you stop replying to it! You've make personal attacks repeatedly on my page, Talk:Stephen Hawking, TFA talk, and Malleus's. You have been warned once already.  MathewTownsend (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am VERY sick of this conversation and will gladly stop replying when you and your good friend Sandy stop calling me stupid, telling me I don't know what I am talking about, that I am immature, ignorant and generally evil, misinterpreting what I try to explain to you, refuse to grant me the good faith you accuse me of not having, making threats like telling me I have been "warned" for nothing, and generally spewing forth extremely vicious personal attacks on me that are hurtful, unkind, ad hominem in nature and which I feel I must respond to, lest I allow a false accusation against me to go unanswered and be deemed admitted. Truly, if you agree to cease making personal attacks on me, I will, in turn, be glad to avoid this page entirely.  Montanabw (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Montanabw, you deleted my one comment on your talk page with a false edit summary: "Toss suggestbot". Stop posting on my page. I don't care what problems you have with other editors. Don't post here. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

@ Montana, regardless of your history with anyone (which is of no concern to me), we have an FA proposed at TFAR that needs substantial work, and you are the only editor personalizing issues on the talk page. Please leave Mathew alone, and refrain from adding any more comments maligning editors to the various pages where you are spreading them. If you have comments about content, by all means share them: stop personalizing. @ Mathew, Montana's recent comments are concerning in a troubling (creepy) kind of way. You are certainly free to ignore my counsel, but I suggest your best path at this point is to simply no longer respond to any provocative posts any place where she might make them-- they speak for themselves. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I won't respond any longer. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Pyramid of Sahure
Hello ! I renominated the article on the Pyramid of Sahure. Strangely your comment dating back to Septembre 2012 "this article is being reviewed" appears on the GA nomination page. I don't know how to remove it ? Unless you want to review the article again (I responded to your comments and implemented all required changes), the "this article is being reviewed" note must be removed, otherwise nobody will review the article again. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm really very sorry. My bad. I completed the paperwork for the first nomination. Good luck on your new one. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for your help. I hope the comment "this article is being reviewed" will disappear from the nomination page soon (it is still there for the moment). Otherwise, do you know if I need to withdraw the nomination and nominate again ? Iry-Hor (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it is a real mess, I removed the "this article is being reviewed" note on the nomination page, but the link on the nomination page sends to the old review and clearly states that a review is ongoing. Also on the talk page of the article, it says the article is a nominee and is currently being reviewed by an editor. I think the GA nomination bot got confused because te old nomination was not closed. I really don't know what to do, if you know what to do, please tell me, I would be happy to renominate the article. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It seemed ok when I originally fixed it yesterday and went to a new review page. The bot must have screwed it up! I'll ask on the GA talk page. Someone there will know how to fix it! Again, I'm really sorry that you have to go through this. I know they can straighten it out! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem and thanks again for your precious help ! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Kerry Bog Pony/GA1
Mathew, I'm guessing that from the fact that you haven't been back to this one, and from what's occurring above here on this talk page, that you don't want to continue with this review. If so, I'll close it down—or, if you'd prefer, you can end it yourself as "not listed"—so a new review can start. Please let me know your preference; one way or another, I'd like to get the nomination unstuck. Many thanks, and I'm sorry this has been so unpleasant. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was actually ready to pass it. I have no problem with Dana boomer at all. Just with Montanabw. If she stays out out it (it was Dana boomer's nomination), I'm ready to pass it after one last go through. Thanks, and best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good to know. I'll leave it to you, then, and best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 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, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Writing centres etc.
Mathew, you commented on a post of mine on the education noticeboard about the use of writing centres on university campuses as a locus for Wikipedia expertise. I've been so slow about responding that I didn't want to post on the ENB, but I thought you might be interested. I checked in with a couple of academics I've been working with, and I got some responses that I thought were useful.

Several kinds of cross-disciplinary structures were mentioned. Libraries are an obvious one, and some campus ambassadors work in the libraries. Another is writing centres, which focus on teaching cross-disciplinary writing skills. Another is teaching and learning centres (e.g this one at LSU). Functions like curriculum development, and development of teaching and learning skills, are not specific to particular disciplines, and these are natural places to look for an interest in Wikipedia. We need campus ambassadors to be expert in Wikipedia and to be long-term members of the faculty; it's even better if they are able to support all disciplines across campus. I think the ideal situation would be one where a college has at least a couple of people in some such central group who are experienced Wikipedia editors, and who are able to serve as an on-campus resource for both students and educators. Training individual professors is great; institutionalizing expectations for working with Wikipedia is even better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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) 01:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)