User talk:Tow/Archives/2012/June

The Wikipedia page "User talk:The Tzar of Culture" has been changed on
The Wikipedia page "User talk:The Tzar of Culture" has been changed on 31 May 2012 by TowTrucker, with the edit summary: Warning: Username and conflict of interest policy on TheTzar of Culture. (TW)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Tzar_of_Culture&diff=next&oldid=495328694 to view this change. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Tzar_of_Culture&diff=0&oldid=495328694 for all changes since your last visit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Tzar_of_Culture for the current revision.

To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TowTrucker The Tzar of Culture (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Taking you up on your offer of help!
Hi Tow Trucker – Thanks so much for the Barnstar, and even more for the offer of help. They've both raised my spirits! I was left a bit deflated by the immediate comments I got yesterday after posting Peter Scott-Morgan (I briefly replied to IanMacM on his personal talk page if you want to get the whole thread). As he didn't offer to help further I didn't know whether it was Wikiquette to ask…

I'd wanted to offer a draft of my first ever article for review prior to posting it, but then discovered that this option has been discontinued. Nevertheless, before risking another article on a different topic I really want to leave my first attempt at a far better standard than I've evidently achieved so far – at least, say, up to a quality at which you'd rate it as B-Class (up from the C-Class that it's been given). In that spirit of 'Learning by Doing', I'll first try to address the points that have been raised already:
 * STYLE: I've clearly got this totally wrong if it "reads like a PR handout". It would be really helpful if you could point out the most egregious examples and suggest remedies. I'll then try and mirror that approach throughout a complete redraft.
 * NOTABILITY: This is the only one of IanMacM's issues where I thought I was on more solid ground. As an academic (in the Wikipedia sense of "scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars") Scott-Morgan does appear to fit the Notability (people) criterion of being "notably influential in the world of ideas without [his biography] being the subject of secondary sources". IanMacM is right, of course, I didn't find S-M's work quoted in mass media (apart from Fortune [21] and the Independent [22]) but the important sources stating the influence of his ideas are from academia (eg, the top Professor at London Business School acknowledging the long influence of his ideas on her work [8] or the various refereed academic PhD-theses/papers building on his work (eg, [34],[35]) – including the early PhD analysis of his work of which the paper's title even back in 1995 refers to him as a 'guru' [19]), management consultants (including from 'rival' consultancies, most references clustered in the section on 'Academia, management consulting…') and corporate leaders (such as the formal testimony to the Irish Parliamentary Committee by the chairman of the largest bank in Ireland[60] describing S-M as "the world expert on corporate culture", or the published paper by BP saying how they'd validated and then widely applied his work[17]). There are numerous academic and business articles I cited showing how his ideas were also applied at places like Citibank, Daimler-Benz, H-P, Lloyds, NHS, Philips, and YPF. The frequent citations from 'promoters' (such as speaking agencies etc.) are clearly more prone to hype – so as far as notability is concerned I've only used them as justification of how he is widely portrayed (not least because the citations demonstrate he's been positioned in this way, by very many promoters, for about two decades, and that profile corresponds to what more reliable sources like the Chairman of AIB also claim). With all that said, I've obviously done a bad job conveying his notability in an accessible way. Any suggestions?
 * LENGTH: From what IanMacM says, it's too long and has too many citations anyway. I suspect I've included too much of what I found online, rather than selected better. Should I aim to cut the article by a half? And halve the number of citations?? In which case, should it be a relatively uniform pruning, or should I delete some topics completely?
 * PRIMARY SOURCING: I've tried rigorously only to cite Scott-Morgan himself as an indication of what he has written about – never anything about how he portrays himself. The only exception I'm aware of is his website (which I made sure I made explicit by naming it #1), but given his obvious COI I've only used it as a source of non-contentious information (such as his age, where he keeps a home, etc.). I've never knowingly used anything written in his name as a source of evidence for notability. From reading the Manual, I thought this was OK. However, if you think it unnecessarily raises concerns if I cite his website even in this way I can delete it completely and remove a bit of the 'color' that it added (other than, I guess, his DOB). What is best practice on this sort of thing?

I think that covers the main points. I realize what a pain newbies like me must be, but I really do appreciate any and all help you can spare me. Once again, thanks so much for the offer!

LisaNotsimpson (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello! First of all, I would like to say that your article is Peter Scott-Morgan is better attempt at a BLP compared to most other BLPs created by new editors. I myself am a very new Wikipedia editor and am still learning the intricacies of the system. The biggest thing I've learnt in my last month on WIkipedia is to be nice to new editors. The number of Wikipedia editors is dropping and there aren't many new editors that are interested in contributing much. So it is important to help new editors as much as possible. Regarding your request, I think you new article is great for a new BLP. It does have some issues though as pointed out by IanMacM. I will address the individual points below:

Also, make sure you've read the documentation on Biographies. Please note that I am a newbie too and the above suggestions might have some errors. If you have any other questions, feel free to send me a message. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! -- Tow Trucker  talk  20:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Style: I do think that there are some problems with the overall style of the article. It reads more like a CV/Resume than a Biographical article. For example in the first line of the article you mentioned that he is an expert on how organizations really work without providing any citations. In my opinion, that language does not seem to be neutral. Editors like us have to make sure that the articles are unbiased and do not promote one specific point of view. You might find this documentation helpful.
 * Notability: Form what you say, if there are reliable third-party articles stating that his ideas were implemented at places Citibank then I think the article's subject is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. You might find this page helpful.
 * Length: I myself think that the length of the article and the number of citations is a bit too much considering the notability of the subject at hand. You should try reducing those.
 * Primary Sourcing: You should try not to use primary sources or self-published sources due to the Conflict of Interest. The pages I linked should be helpful in understanding more about these issues.


 * Thanks so much TowTrucker. That's really helpful. Until your offer to 'pull me out of the mud' boosted my spirits again, I'd have not been very suprised by your comment that the number of Wikipedia editors is dropping - I suspect that some of the long-standing editors maybe don't appreciate the full psychological impact of their perfectly valid but slightly terse interventions!! I'm really grateful that you take, shall I say, a "more compassionate" approach! Anyway, I'll definitely act on your advice and try to improve my article exactly as you suggest. Having had my fingers burned, albeit quite appropriately, by being forced to post an unreviewed version because there isn't an Ask For Review service any more, is it OK for me to work on a re-draft within my User Space and then, when I think it's better, possibly ask you to have a look at it BEFORE I post it live? Thanks, again.LisaNotsimpson (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure! I'd be happy to help you. - Tow Trucker  talk  17:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi TowTrucker – as promised I have heavily edited Peter Scott-Morgan based on all your suggestions. Specifically, I've changed the tone, focused the article more explicitly upon his notability, significantly reduced the size, and kept only the more important citations (down to 49 from 63). Upon re-reading bits of the Manual I remembered that it is frowned upon to make edits elsewhere and then cut-and-paste, so rather than modify the draft in my User space I've Been Bold and done it on the page itself! Also, I found that it is recommended that there are no references in the initial paragraph (which is supposed to summarize the rest of the entry), so that's how I've left it. Thanks to your feedback, I really think that the article is now reading a lot better. But obviously I'm happy to keep editing it if you have further suggestions. Hope you think it's an improvement on my original attempt! Thanks again.LisaNotsimpson (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like a great article to me. I hope you liked working on Wikipedia and will keep contributing. It is people like you that keep Wikipedia alive and kicking. You can see how helping new editors in a friendly way can be very beneficial for the project. I just wish other editors were also more helpful to the newbies. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me. I hope you keep writing more quality articles. Thank you for your contributions. -- Tow  talk  20:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Tow, you really are very kind. Thank you. I can truthfully say that if you hadn't held out a helping hand I suspect I wouldn't have found the enthusiasm to do the major rewrite, and certainly wouldn't have considered contributing again. I'm left with the realization that "being a good editor" of Wikipedia-entries from newbies is NOT just a function of technical-editing skill (which I'm sure is very high with long-standing editors), but ALSO requires high emotional-intelligence. As the author Leo Buscaglia (who died fourteen years ago) put it: "Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around." Anyway, for what it's worth, that's my take on it! Could I ask one final favor from you? Could you possibly write a one-liner on the Talk page of Peter Scott-Morgan (placed after the rather terse critiques of the first two feedbacks) basically to reassure any future editors that look at the page that you took the time to read the latest version and that it's not too bad??? Basically I still feel a bit paranoid about someone coming along and summarily recommending it for Deletion - without realizing that it's moved on since the initial feedback and that an independent editor now feels that it's OK. You adding something would be really reassuring. Thanks again! And then I'll get out of your hair!! LisaNotsimpson (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done :) -- Tow  talk  00:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Re:Deletion
That's over fast you put a deletion template right at the newest page, I already find the reference link of that drama and add into the article. But first, I had to say this is Malaysia's tv stub, not Indonesia tv stub! I had no choice but to use :O If you don't trust me, just check out the reference link, thank you!

Oh yes, Malaysia articles completely lacks of important articles! Esther Siaw (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The only source you have right now is a primary source. Please add reliable THIRD-PARTY sources. -- Tow Trucker  talk  04:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean 3 sources? Alright, right now I find the second soure for it, but it's in Malay language. Do you guys accept this? Esther Siaw (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * YES! You can use a Malay source. :) -- Tow Trucker  talk  04:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hooray! That's great! >,< Thanks, fella! Esther Siaw (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. Feel free to ask me any questions you have. -- Tow Trucker  talk  04:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

= Anjuman Mufidul Islam charity organisation in Bangladesh cons elderly Muslims into writing over their valuable assets with false promises. Duped my grandmother into siging over a valuable property at 42 Kakrail, Dhaka. Now they are going to sell it without doing what they promised to do with it. This was only a conditional gift valid for 35 years, a time period which now has been exceeded.

116.68.195.119 (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Headsup
I replied back to you at the usurpation page. Pakaran 03:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Question
Hi,

I see you edited our "HandOnToys and HandsOnConsulting" article. The review says we need reliable sources - I understand this, but a lot of my information is coming directly from the source/the company. Would providing links to articles/etc fill this requirement?

Handsontoys (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Just add some third party sources. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! TOW  talk  05:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

pls see changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit_Accounting --

196.215.164.109 (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. 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) 21:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 21:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Test. TOW talk  05:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 22:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

SUL
Confirmation note that I would like to usurp de:User:Tow, ja:User:Tow, no:User:Tow, tr:User:Tow into this account.


 * Done on no: Haros (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank You TOW  talk  20:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Now I am just waiting for de, ja, and tr. TOW  talk  21:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Time in Illinois
Hi there Tow - I just noticed that you closed Articles for deletion/Time in Illinois as "keep", but I don't think that it was a clear keep. If I was in a position to close it, I would have been tempted to either close it as "merge", or close it as "no consensus" and asked the participants to further discuss a merge on the talk page. In any case, the debate was quite close - from my quick count, I saw 5 "merge" recommendations, including the nominator and suggestions to merge couched as comments, and 3 "keep" recommendations. According to our guidelines on non-admin closures, non-admins shouldn't close deletion discussions that aren't clearly unambiguous, so I don't think your closure here was appropriate. This was a week ago, so I don't think that we really need to do anything about this now, but I just thought I'd mention it to you so you can consider it next time you close an AfD discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Help clear the Feedback Dashboard queue... for science! :)
Hi Tow, not sure if you'll see this on Riley Huntley's talk page, but I have a favor to ask. Can you help my colleagues with a research project on MoodBar/Feedback Dashboard? They'd like to temporarily clear the feedback response queue in order to determine the effect of getting a response on new newbie activity levels. They're aiming to have as much feedback responded to as possible by June 19th. More details about this test are here on Meta. Any help with clearing the backlog and/or spreading the word about this to other top FD responders would be greatly appreciated! Thanks :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll be happy to help! TOW  talk  00:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I like doing this. TOW talk  02:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 14:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that's just confusing ^ xD.
 * Cheers,

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Four
Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!


 * Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!

Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!


 * What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
 * ....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
 * Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement
 * 409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
 * Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
 * New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.


 * Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
 * New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:
 * Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
 * Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
 * Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
 * Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.

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 here. Sarah (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
 * Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is really encouraging to new Wikipedians.

You're doing a fantastic job!
Tow, thank you so much from me and the research team for your work on clearing the Feedback Dashboard backlog! You and the other responders have doubled the number of responses to feedback in the past few days. I wanted to let you know that the MoodBar is going be temporarily disabled in a few days, so you won't see any new feedback coming in for a little while (this is just to get a sample of users to compare to the ones who could give feedback and get responses from you – it'll be back soon). So get all of your responding in while you can, because you might have to go through a bit of Feedback Dashboard withdrawal next week :) Thanks again, and keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Afd Protocol
Tow, please refrain from administrative actions, even minor ones in deletion discussions you have initiated or participated in, as you did here. While I believe that a reasonable case could have been made for relisting at that point (and while there are clearly other issues within that discussion as well), even such seemingly minor steps as relisting can be problematic, and are best avoided. --joe deckertalk to me 23:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for informing me about this. I was not aware of this policy. TOW  talk  01:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries, I looks as if you may be just getting your feet wet with AfD, it takes some time to pick up some of its ways. Don't hesitate to drop me a note if you have any questions, cheers!  --j⚛e deckertalk 18:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling
Hi. Thank you  for patrolling  new pages. I'm not  sure however that  there is much  sense in  adding  orphan tags to  an article that  is already  tagged for deletion and almost  certainly  will be. The orphan tag is the most misused of all tags. For more information on  new page patrolling, please see WP:NPP and if you have any  questions don't  hesitate to  ask  me. Happy patrolling! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How are you sure that the page you linked to will be deleted? Being written in another language does not make it eligible for deletion. TOW  talk  06:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, but I read the content  of the page. That  said page patrolling  also  requires a lot  of common sense and like me, there are some tasks you  can do when patrolling. NPP  is only  worth  doing  if it  is done properly. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I was unable to read the content because it was in a language I do not understand. TOW  talk  06:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Never heard of Google Translate? BTW, you don't need to plaster my talk page with talkbacks, I have a thing called a watchlist ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * here was another one. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * and another - in fact your CSDd this one yourself... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Replace this with the subject of your message
Windows.dll (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard Update
Hello, Tow. New feedback should slow down and then stop in the next couple of days – the researchers temporarily turned off the MoodBar for people registering right now, in order to get a control sample for their test – so you'll have time to catch up. It will be turned on again on the 29th. I just hope you don't get too bored next week without feedback! Maybe visit the Teahouse? Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 18:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

== Hello Tow, I believe the message you left on my talk page was due to a missunderstanding on my part. I was still working on the page, and using the external links offered as sources, which I subsequently cited. Next time I will wait to remove the ... ==

Response to your comment on National Towers.

EncycloCritique (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi New Friend
Hi Tow. It's Thatguy. Thank you for the welcome and the cookies. I just made a new article about the 2012 BET Awards. I have a question about putting an image in the Infobox. How do you do that?

Thatguy739 (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tow!
Hi Tow! I see you are on a wikibreak, but you're also editing occasionally. After becoming a Host at the Teahouse I haven't seen you participate yet :( Please let me know if you still intend on doing so, just so I know if I need to start putting the call out for new participants :) Thanks! Sarah (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Teahouse is a great initiative and I still want to participate in it. TOW  talk  01:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Got another question
I mentioned earlier today that I made a new article about the 2012 BET Awards. The creation was hard and there was a editing conflict but no one else was making an article of the same name. Do you have any advice for when I make another article?

Thatguy739 (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't understand
I meant that I went through a conflict when I posted the article, but no one else made one that's similar. I just realized that my article was in sandbox at the time. Sorry for confusion.

Thatguy739 (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Well, I'm glad you're happy. Thanks for your feedback! Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Salma Vian (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Sasanack Feedback Reply
Thank you for your offer of help! I will try to summarize here the precise problem I have and which I feel is a general Wikipedia problem)

1. I began editing on Wikipedia because of my interest in Vassula Ryden. It seemed a natural thing to try to improve the Vassula Wikipedia page. Initially I did so anonymously but eventually registered as Sasanack.

2. Initially, my edits seemed to cause no problems but then other editors came in and significant conflict arose. This lead to the administrator, Dougweller, coming in and locking the topic to allow edits only by account holders with a minimum of 10 (I think) edits to their name.

3. Currently, there seems to be only one other editor who is positive about Vassula actively trying to improve the page. But there are half a dozen experienced Wiki editors who have got themselves involved in the page, despite having almost no knowledge of Vassula. Worse, these editors seem (judging by their user-pages) to be against religion and 'superstition' in general.

4. There is one specific piece of information which should, unquestionably be present on the 'Roman Catholic stance' section of the Vassula page but the other editors are removing any attempt to insert the information. The information concerns the dialogue Vassula had with the Vatican from 2001 - 2004 (see www.cdf-tlig.org) This dialogue is the only contact that the Vatican has had with Vassula and without reference to it, the 'Roman Catholic stance' section of the Wikipedia page is simply absurd. I took this matter to DRN and I've pasted the discussion at the bottom of my talk page.

Thank you for listening and any help you might be able to offer.--Sasanack (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The following is in response to the response of Tow on my talk page:


 * Hmm, yes, well, you live and learn. When I received an anonymous offer of help (from you, Tow) after I responded to a feedback request, I was hopeful that someone was offering to, well, help....  I fear your response is what is exasperating about Wikipedia.  Namely, that it has many editors who enjoy playing with rules and regulations but have little interest in delving into Wikipedia content.  --Sasanack (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Invites!
Hi Tow. As a Teahouse Host you might remember reading about the importance of inviting users to the Teahouse. I notice you invite a lot of people to help spaces throughout Wikipedia, and it'd be great if you could think about the Teahouse, too! Without invitations, people, at this time (at the end of the pilot) might not know about it. You can find a refresher about the invite guide here: WP:Teahouse/Host lounge/Invite guide and great scripts created by the community to make inviting easier here. I hope this helps! Thanks! Sarah (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi! I will surely be sending more invites now as I know about the scripts now. TOW  talk  16:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Vignesh thirumurthi Feedback Reply
Thank you

Vignesh thirumurthi (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 17:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 17:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're being trolled...
Here. They jumped in the middle of a conversation on my talkpage that they were uninvolved with, completely misread it, took my statement that I was actually saddened to have blocked a TOTAL of 400 editors during my career as an admin, and twisted it to believe that I was sad that I had "missed my quota of 400 blocks this month" ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thank you for the notification. I had just sent that user a message through the feedback dashboard. I have read the conversation now and think what you did was completely right and in line with the Wikipedia policies. TOW  talk  20:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheers :-) ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Egeymi Feedback Reply
Today I witnessed two bots' unreasonable actions on the page of Prince Nayef and its talk page. The first one was about vandalism. The bot put something to the message included some negative statements on the talk page since the user was with IP instead of deleting the statements. The other bot did something very strange. It took serious the tag put by a two-day user. In both cases, I reverted the edits. These made me confused. Thanks for your attention. I hope my feedback leads to the improvement of Wikipedia.

Egeymi (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tow
You sent me an email so you must have put something on my or your talk page. But I've had enough Wiki for a while. I'm doing some research on Tottenham Hotspur for the club's entry, through two of the club's fanzines. I'll log into Wiki again then. Cheers. You can always ring me - (Redacted) (I don't mind giving number out).82.11.178.239 (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Herbolzheim

BTW, if it's about this character who says I jumped into a conversation, I can show you that I was just checking as it was ambiguous. Also, I genuinely wanted to know how administrators knew how many blocks they put on a month - he said one did 14,000 which seems a bit high. I alos wonder what standards apply to administrators and asked if there was any guidance. I don't think he liked being asked but I dare say it's on the site somewhere. 82.11.178.239 (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Click on this, go down to "blocks", expand the section, and you'll see the top 10. You can ignore ProcseeBot's blocks.  Also: be careful that you don't edit Wikipedia while logged in and while logged out  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Replace this with the Subject of your Message
You sent me an email so you must have put something on my or your talk page. But I've had enough Wiki for a while. I'm doing some research on Tottenham Hotspur for the club's entry, through two of the club's fanzines. I'll log into Wiki again then. Cheers. You can always ring me - (Redacted) (I don't mind giving number out).82.11.178.239 (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Herbolzheim PS Thanks for the advice on talk pages.

82.11.178.239 (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
I am replying to my own feedback. I have learnt a lot over the last two months.

TOW talk  20:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

???
Dear Tow, will you say something regarding my feedback? I wrote my views, as you asked. Thanks,

Egeymi (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I still do not understand. What specific bad actions were done by those two bots? TOW  talk  20:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The first bot merely added a required date to a tag someone else added - the bot isn't smart enough to know that the tag was wrong :-) ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right Bwilkins, bots are not smart enough. I hope one day there will be smart bots not adding dates to the edits containing vandalism. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Herbolzheim Feedback Reply
I'm fed up with egos and pedantry and bad faith when I ask a genuine question, and instant threats of blocking like Zeus toying with mortals. No worries.

Herbolzheim (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Time in Illinois
Please can you explain how you reached a Keep conclusion for the above discussion when the keep side were relying on assertion and failed to provide any sourcing to justify a standalone article under GNG? Spartaz Humbug! 04:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! I have been informed about the mistake I made while assessing the consensus on that AfD discussion. I apologize for my mistake. You could consider renominating it for deletion.  REPLY   TOW  talk  04:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note the DRV. This is procedural to get the close revisited by an admin as I'm no longer an admin so I can't reclose this myself. Spartaz Humbug! 04:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting it on review.  REPLY   TOW  talk  04:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/ClueNet (3rd nomination)
Relisting your own nomination is not appropriate. Please don't do this again. Spartaz Humbug! 04:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello! I have been informed regarding this before and now I try not to participate in AfD discussions anymore. Sorry for my mistakes.  REPLY   TOW  talk  04:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Elizabeth_Mackay
Non-Consensus is not an acceptable outcome for a NAC. Please can you revert yourself and relist this to allow an admin to close this one. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 04:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello! I have reverted my changes to the page you provided. I seriously messed up with all those AfDs.  REPLY   TOW  talk  04:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for listening and acting. Spartaz Humbug! 04:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Lupe Fiasco Feedback Reply
Lupe Fiasco's views are described as "anti-establishment" in this same article, so I will use wikipedia as my source for that.

Are you also looking for the full quote in which he calls voting meaningless?

"No, I don't vote," he said. "I don’t get involved in politics. It's meaningless. If I'm going to say I stand behind this person and write on a piece of paper that says, 'Yeah, I stand for this person,' then I have to take responsibility for everything he does cause that's just who I am as a human being. So politicians aren't going to do that because I don't want you to bomb some village in the middle of nowhere." http://www.theroot.com/buzz/lupe-fiasco-obama-terrorist

Not sure what else sources would be needed for. The line has scare-quotes around "meaningless," and it doesn't make sense to say that Lupe Fiasco doesn't vote "in spite of" his political views.

[reply] - Got it, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.142.149 (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

71.205.142.149 (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. You can then reopen the request by providing the source you provided here as a source in your request.  REPLY   TOW  talk  04:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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) 11:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to Editing title of Boston Center for Retirement Research
Hi Cliff, I am the creator and editor of the page that I just created for the Boston Center for Retirement Research. While I am still editing the page, adding reference and hyperlinks, I accidentally put the wrong title for the page. I originally had the title as Retirement research center and you changed it to boston retirement research center. I cannot seem to figure out how to edit the title, but was hoping you could help me change it to Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, as that is the institution that I am intending on creating this page for. Thank you for your help with this.

AGrzybowski (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Please see User talk:AGrzybowski, I think you posted this on the wrong page. Cliff12345 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Some notes on Template:Wikify
Athleek  123  01:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That you for the notification. I will take more care next time before tagging an article with the Wikify tag. TOW  talk  03:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for your understanding. Athleek  123  09:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

some words

 * thx for the answer --Reddle (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

 * Thank You! TOW  talk  18:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Feedback
I guess logging in just prompts it to ask again unless you've already disabled it for that IP. Might this be changed? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this point should be raised with the MediaWiki developers. TOW  talk  18:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where should I point this out or will you point it out to them? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You should consider posting this to the Community Portal or to the Help Desk. Someone must know what to do next. TOW  talk   02:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Adoption
Hello Tow! I am just letting you know that I am accepting your request for mentorship, and you are now a student at my adoption school. I've created your official adoption page, which is located at User:Bmusician/Adoption/Tow.

In your first assignment (which I have already assigned to you) you will learn about the five pillars. Read the lesson carefully. After you're done reading the lesson, you will take a test about the lesson. You must answer all of the questions in the test adequately in order to move on to the next assignment.

After you've completed all required assignments, you will then take a final examination. If you pass the examination, you will "graduate" from the school; if you fail, however, you must continue to study at the adoption school until you finally pass an exam. Please note that you may leave the school at any time without graduating, but that means that you won't be awarded the "graduation barnstar" I give to my graduate students.

That's it; welcome to my adoption school! Please leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions regarding the school. → B  music  ian  09:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed, such as the one you undid on Sino-Vietnamese conflicts 1979-1990. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

AN/I and the IP troll
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evanh2008 (talk 02:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that the issue has been addressed and my input is not required. TOW  talk   04:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)