Crisco 1492 (talk | contribs) →This week's Signpost: oops wrong word |
→Owsley review: new section |
||
Line 473: | Line 473: | ||
*For the Hadji Ali picture, the promoted image was the edit. At FPC some nominations have edited copies uploaded under different titles for comparison, like at the Hadji Ali nomination or the blue and white bird current at FPC. [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 14:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |
*For the Hadji Ali picture, the promoted image was the edit. At FPC some nominations have edited copies uploaded under different titles for comparison, like at the Hadji Ali nomination or the blue and white bird current at FPC. [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 14:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
:*Anything published in the US before 1923 is in the public domain, so it is free to use. If an agency is asserting copyright over a PD image, it's [[copyfraud]]... i.e. unenforceable. Speaking of the images, usually the promoter indicates which image has been promoted in his/her summary. [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 21:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |
:*Anything published in the US before 1923 is in the public domain, so it is free to use. If an agency is asserting copyright over a PD image, it's [[copyfraud]]... i.e. unenforceable. Speaking of the images, usually the promoter indicates which image has been promoted in his/her summary. [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 21:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Owsley review == |
|||
As I stated at Maggie's talk page, it is inappropriate to continue conversation there. You should not have replied on her talk page. This is concerning. As a WMF staff member, she is restricted by law to participate or even look at the content. Mathew, I am uncomfortable with your manner of reviewing the article. The assumptions and accusations have been inappropriate. Ask questions. Don't accuse. I never stated that your review is being made in bad faith. I stated that your opening remark was made in bad faith and inappropriate. You didn't ask me if I wrote it off-wiki, but you asked me where it came from. And no, the article didn't spring into life on February 10, but in July, as I told you. You could have also checked the date yourself. There is a better way of communicating your concerns. As far as the Signpost, I never rely on the Signpost for interpretation of policy or guidelines, but review them directly. The Signpost is merely opinion of various editors. I would recommend that you review and point to policy and guidelines directly with editors, rather than point to the Signpost. |
|||
You stated on Moonriddengirl's talk page that you "''pointed out this instance of odd language in the review: "The family lived financially conservative, yet never seemed to run out of money by the third week of the month, due to his mother's talent at stretching a meal." I asked what you meant by "lived financially conservative" combined with the "yet never seemed to run out of money" - the two clauses seem to clash, and "lived financially conservative" isn't really grammatical. I suggested alternatives and asked what you meant. You refused to change the wording and the odd language remains in the article.'' |
|||
The above statement is completely lacking in reality. |
|||
In reality, you questioned the content, "The family was rather conservative, with neither parent developing a habit of smoking or drinking." Changing it to "The family was rather conservative. Neither parent developing a habit of smoking or drinking." The first version when stating "rather conservative" was qualified with "neither parent developing a habit of smoking or drinking." Your change introduced additionally introduced an incomplete sentence. That said, I completely revised the content to "The family lived financially conservative, yet never seemed to run out of money by the third week of the month, due to his mother's talent at stretching a meal. Her son's favorite dish was a casserole using a mixture of onions, celery, rice, and mushroom soup over ground beef," since you were uncomfortable with it. The term "lived financially conservative" is grammatically correct. |
|||
I appreciate Derrick's contributions and manner of interaction. If you are unable to function without continually referring to your mentor, you may want to reconsider your involvement in the GA process. Again, while I welcome your participation, if you are uncomfortable or unable to proceed, please consider requesting an official second opinion. Best regards, <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">[[User:Cindamuse|Cind.]]</font><font color="purple" face="Tahoma">[[User talk:Cindamuse#top|amuse]] (Cindy)</font> 23:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:09, 23 February 2012
Welcome!
Hello, MathewTownsend, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Meelar (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
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)
The Signpost: 06 February 2012
- News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors
- In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned
- Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts
- WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
- Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
GA Bot
Hi. I see that you're making quite a few edits on WP:GAN to try to correct bot errors. The bot gets all its information from the GAN template on the nominated article's talk page. If something isn't coming out right, it should be corrected on the article talk page, not the GAN page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I always check the talk page first to make sure. Besides, the bot was adding a malformed "Hold" - A blue Note and then visible code - not like the other "holds" on the page with the pink image. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
GAN page
Hi Mathew. Just though I would let you know that you can't change the bot by changing the WP:GAN page. You need to alter the template on the reviewed articles talk page. Moving the note parameter should have fixed FLIP.[1]
- No. The parameters were correct on the Talk page. I checked. I saw this happen on another article a few weeks ago. Neither of the articles were one's that I'd reviewed. Both were correct on the talk page. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- If note is before status the status is included in the note. The only way to fix it is to alter the template like I did above. AIRcorn (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- ok MathewTownsend (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- If note is before status the status is included in the note. The only way to fix it is to alter the template like I did above. AIRcorn (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, you've given me some good things to think over pre-review (whoever ends up doing the review). I just pinged an editor who worked on a review of the parent article, so hopefully he'll have some good ideas, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
re: GAN Icelandic Phallological Museum
I've fixed the dead link. oyasumi (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, however it was the wrong one. It should have been Dan Leno - the article. I cant think why I added this instead. I will be adding Dan Leno tomorrow at some stage. -- Cassianto (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's ok. No big deal. Dan Leno looks interesting! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll sit out the peer review as per WP:PR and then I'll list. All the best! -- Cassianto (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- ok, the article looks like a good one. Great topic. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll sit out the peer review as per WP:PR and then I'll list. All the best! -- Cassianto (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The Dirty Picture
What copyright issues are you talking about? Most of the so called "copying" are from quotes that have been duly referenced. So how can you fail a GA Review? Let other editors decide that. Having said that, if there are some copyright issues, then a copy edit can surely be done. But failing an article is not the answer. smaro! 04:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've labeled in the article the two sections that are copyvio. Please rewrite those sections in your own words. (And make sure there are no other instances of copyvio, as my browser couldn't load several of the citations. After you do that, nominate it again for GA. I think the article is good and was disappointed to find the copyvio. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Cinebasti is not a reliable source. I have written the entire article myself, especially the two sections that have been labelled as a copyvio. Cinebasti has lifted the article directly from the Wikipedia page and not the opposite.
Thanks.
smaro! 05:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Madagascar GA nom
Hi Mathew, I've made the changes discussed in the GA review, and I think the article is ready for you to take another look at it again. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't forgotten and will get to it shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
RE
Thanks Matthew, it took me 4 noms but it finally did it. It was a pleasant surprise to get on today and see it had been moved over. Now I just got 11 more to go.--WillC 04:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Politically Inept
Hey, thanks for the copyedits! :) Theleftorium (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Passing mention at AN/I
Hi, Mathew, this is just to let you know that in defending myself at AN/I, I mentioned your name (as one of the victims of the mass revert by User:Montanabw). I hope and trust I mentioned you only in a neutral or positive light. Sorry about this, best regards. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mathew, sorry your work got reverted in my mass revert of JLAN's stuff. It was unclear if your review was of JLAN's edits or the article as Dana submitted it. I could not sort out which was who's. My position was that Dana's draft was stable, and that any changes needed to occur by consensus (based on your review, in particular) I did not mean to interfere with your work or refer to what you were doing as "vandalism." My concern was solely that JLAN was harassing Dana (for about the fifth time, I think) on one of her GA's, and one I previously had nothing to do with, so clearly he wasn't just firing off another salvo in our own ongoing set of disagreements. Sorry you got caught in the crossfire. Montanabw(talk) 23:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I got caught in the "crossfire" because my role in the GAN process was dismissed and overridden by your revert. Justlettersandnumbers was not engaging inappropriately in the interview process, from my point of view. Often editors other than the nominator offer suggestions or make edits. There's nothing wrong with that; in fact it's encouraged in the GAN instructions. Your unilateral out-of-process revert is what made the article unstable.
- Where or not you thought someone was harassing Dana, your revert was an inappropriate way to handle the situation and was destructive to my review. Why didn't you contact me instead? I can't understand such behavior or such a dismissive attituide toward a GAN reviewer (me). From my view, there is no rational reason for the revert. It is not for you to decide what the "stable" version is for GAN purposes. Please read the GAN instructions and learn the roles of reviewers, nominators, and other editors; I urge you to refrain from disrupting GAN anymore.
- GAN is a genuinely nice place to edit wikipedia, and I would hate to see that changed. I've reviewed fifty something GANs and never experienced anything like your behavior. GAN got caught in the crossfire. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, JLAN did properly note that I reverted your stuff with his. And I'm sorry about that. But please note that I have been a wikipedia editor almost 6 years with several GA's to my own credit. I do in fact know the guidelines, and it wasn't you I intended to revert. When I saw the edits JLAN was making without Dana around to defend or review the material, I couldn't really sort out if you were working off his edits or hers, and I didn't have access to the source material to evaluate it, so just did a revert to the nominated version, thinking in good faith that I was helping YOU because it would give you a "clean" article to review (your edits fell in-between two sets of JLAN's). Based on what JLAN has done in previous articles with inserting unreliable sources, POV sources, or tendentiously sticking to a source beyond what it actually said (not seeing the forest for the trees), particularly because he is simultaneously "not helping" another article I think Dana wanted to prep for GA, I DID consider his work to be questionable. I would hope you also have never before experienced anything like JLAN's consistent pattern of disrupting almost every Animal-related GA Dana has brought forward in the last several months. I think he really is out to get her -- note: this one:
"This was originally nominated due to stability issues, but the nominator [JLAN] was partly responsible for causing the instability...As this looks like a disruptive nomination and no solid arguments for delisting are presented I am closing it as keep." My timing was poor, but someone needs to look at this fellow. Montanabw(talk) 00:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are completely missing my entire point. If you don't see what was terribly wrong with your dismissive behavior toward me and the disruption you introduced into the GAN process for your own purposes, then there is nothing I can do. It is not helpful to try to justify wrong behavior. The fact that you are as experienced as you say makes it more inexplicable that you think your behavior was justified. Carrying baggage from other places and foisting it into a review I'm working on is not right. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I am having trouble understanding your point. I DO hear that you are angry at me and feel dismissed. And I am very sorry you feel that way because it wasn't my intent. I was actually trying to help by giving you a clean version of the article as it was actually nominated. But I kindly ask that you see MY point: I consider what I did to be very close to a vandal revert -- JLAN's edits are usually about 20% useful material and about 80% OR, often containing unreliable sourcing, usually some heavy POV, and consists of what appears on the surface to be good research, but on closer examination is often not. Anything he adds has to be carefully checked out because it cannot be trusted. You could not have known any of this, and perhaps I should have talked to you here first, but given that all I did on the article was revert once, which JLAN reverted back not long after (calling my edit "vandalism" which got him warned on his talk page by an admin). So I see no real "disruption" -- but it sucks that you and Dana were caught in the middle of it. And that is why I took JLAN to an ANI, where all this can be discussed properly. I see you are friends with Worm That Turned, maybe he can help us communicate better. Montanabw(talk) 15:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Montanabw, you say, "I was actually trying to help by giving you a clean version of the article as it was actually nominated." What????? Think about it! How could such behavior "help" me? Did you ever think of communicating with me? Didn't you think I had the ability to evaluate the content of the article without your "help"?
- I'm not interest in hearing any more of you justifications which you have repeated on multiple places over the last day or so. That you feel "JLAN's edits are usually about 20% useful material and about 80% OR, often containing unreliable sourcing, usually some heavy POV, and consists of what appears on the surface to be good research, but on closer examination is often not" etc. etc. is irrelevant to me and to my evaluation of this GAN. I am only interested in the Large Black (pig) article and not a history of your battles with editors. You had never even edited the article in question before your reverted.
- I understand that you think you are justified in inflicting your view on others in a disruptive manner. As you know, since you say you are an experienced editor well versed in the GAN process, reverting as you did renders the article unstable and makes it eligible for a "quick fail".
- You could have voiced your concerns properly in multiple ways. If you had specific complaints about edits to the article or the way I was reviewing it, you could have recorded them on the GA review page, on the article talk page or on my talk page. Or on the GAN talk page. Or you could have worked on the article yourself with your own knowledge and use of citations. Your job is not to "enforce" a particular editor's version. No "emergency" revert was called for. You didn't have to resort to disruption of the GAN process to make your point. I can't see any justification at all for what you did, and then worsening the situation by involving the GA review in long ANI postings. I'm mystified by your behavior. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I've asked Worm to help us sort this out, but he's going home for the day. So let's give it a rest for 24 hours. If what I've posted makes no sense to you and you refuse to accept my apology as it sits, I've done all I can do. Maybe Worm can sort it out, he seems like a good egg. I'm not evil. I wish you understood that. Montanabw(talk) 17:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Mathew, Pesky here. I'm really hoping that Worm will be able to help out here, he's a great guy and will do his best. Montanabw is a good editor and a good teacher, and though JLAN can do some great work, it's not always great for the reasons MTBW mentioned, so it can be a bit disconcerting suddenly to find a heap of edits on an article being reviewed, when one of the authors isn't available to check anything. Specially if it's happened before. I do understand your frustration here, and I do, of course, understand the way it could look "at first sight" – but first sight is necessarily lacking in insight based on historical performance / troubles with some aspects, like OR, and DUE, and POV. I gather from the way you've worded things here that you've been really upset / annoyed by this whole thing, and I understand that. Where you say "I can't see any justification at all for what you did, and then worsening the situation by involving the GA review in long ANI postings. I'm mystified by your behavior", well, without knowing the history, and knowing that the pile of edits was done by an editor who very frequently needs a second and third pair of eyes in order to keep on policy, I can see that would be hard to understand. Bear in mind that Dana was apparently not available to do that checking herself at that time, which would obviously have been the ideal situation, and Montanabw was basically "babysitting" the article until Dana could get to it herself. Do you understand it a little better now? Hopefully you do. Please try not to get "cross" with any of us here, remember to assume good faith about Montanabw's actions, bear in mind the eleven-months history providing the reasoning behind those actions, and accept her apology for having thrown you off-balance. (and be gentle with me, too, I'm fragile!) (>**)> Granny-hugz to you; this will blow over, these things always do. Pesky (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Reply to Pesky:
- it can be a bit disconcerting suddenly to find a heap of edits on an article being reviewed, when one of the authors isn't available to check anything" - well, I typically edit an article many times as I review it. No one has gotten upset before or interfered in the midst of it. Many reviewers do a lot of edits. The point is that there is time to review everything. There is no emergency!!!
- "Bear in mind that Dana was apparently not available to do that checking herself at that time, which would obviously have been the ideal situation" - ??? It is not "ideal" for the nominator to be editing while I'm in the midst of a review as there is a risk of edit conflicts. It's nice if they are responsive sometime later that day or the next, but not necessary. Most of the time the nominating editor isn't on line during the review. (Or if they are, I'm unaware of it.) In any case, nothing was happening that couldn't have been dealt with during the review process. Reviews can take days or even weeks. No decision would have been made without Dana's input. At least seven days would have to pass without hearing at all from Dana before there would be a possibility of a decision being made with her feedback. And I would ping the nominator first.
- "Montanabw was basically "babysitting" the article until Dana could get to it herself" ??? - aren't there rules about ownership of articles? Are you aware that anyone can edit a GAN article? That is one of the wonderful aspects of GAN - that there aren't ownership issues.
- " Do you understand it a little better now?" - no, "babysitting" an article (battleship mentality) is against all GAN practices.
- "remember to assume good faith about Montanabw's actions" ???? - altho Montanabw clearly wasn't assuming good faith when she reverted? And has continues to fail to AGF on my talk pages, and elsewhere about another editor?
- "accept her apology for having thrown you off-balance" - no, she didn't apologize for the issues that upset me. She apologized for reverting my 9 edits and completely ignored my point that the 9 edits weren't the issue. She did not respond to my explanation of my concerns. this what you consider an apology? Rather, she used the occasion to describe how awful the other editor was. She ignored my concerns. And I see from Worm's talk page that Montanabw still doesn't get it and continues to justify her behavior
- I know she could have handled things better, but we (as people) are allowed to make mistakes - I'm hoping that she wouldn't do a mass revert like that in the future. - she has made it clear how experienced she is as an editor - six years or something on wikipedia. If she hasn't learned decent behavior by now, when will she? A new editor would be blocked for for what she did.
- Is anyone anywhere going to get through to Montanabw that what she did was inappropriate at best? Is everyone's goal to defend bad behavior?
- Inquiring minds want to know. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Mathew. Hope all's going well for you. I'm looking into the whole JLAN/Montanabw issue at the moment, trying to get to the bottom of it, and work out the best solution. Good news for you, as you shouldn't need to worry about it any more hopefully! Montanabw shouldn't have made that revert, it was wholly inappropriate, and she has apologised for it. She is looking at a larger picture though and I'm hoping to help out there. I know she could have handled things better, but we (as people) are allowed to make mistakes - I'm hoping that she wouldn't do a mass revert like that in the future. If you don't mind letting it go and moving on with the review, I'll keep in mind your comments about her behaviour with regards to whatever solution/final comments I put forward. WormTT · (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm done posting here, but must say one final bit. I have tried to explain myself and cannot get through to Mathew. Pesky tried and apparenly she can't get through either. Worm, Mathew listens to you, I'll let you sort it out. Ping me at my talk if there's something more I can say that would be helpful. That said, I have to comment on Worm's thoughts. I think he is making good suggestions and being quite respectful to all. I do have a small objection: my revert was not "wholly inappropriate" -- it was made in haste, yes, it was made out of frustration at JLAN, yes, I probably should have counted 10 and just filed the ANI without the revert, but it was a truly good faith attempt to protect the work of an editor whom I deeply respect (and has taken many, many articles to GA and FA) against the work of an editor who has given me ample reason to distrust both his research and his goodwill. (and has never taken an article to GA or FA, only tried to derail them, and every attempt he has made to derail others has failed.) At the moment I made the edits, that day, I really felt JLANs edits were a form of vandalism; I believed him to be stalking and hounding Dana. I decided to file the ANI rather than continue to fight over that article. I left JLAN's revert of my edit alone. (Will anyone give me credit for that?) I fear Mathew assumes that I am a bad and evil person. I'm not. I apologized for upsetting him and really have no clue what more I can do that does not involve some sort of gesture of abject humiliation or appeasement, which I do not consider warranted. I'm done here. Montanabw(talk) 02:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
oyasumi (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks oyasumi! It was a pleasure. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hadji Ali
I've decided to nominate the image we discussed at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hadji Ali if you wish to participate. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Encyclopedic value. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 08:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WormTT · (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I replied at my talk page on the Chinese Indonesians and Signpost images. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Culver Academies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russell Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 February 2012
- Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
- News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Mathew Townsend. I know you have been very busy, but when you have time could you revisit your GA review on this article? Kierzek and I are at an impasse as we do not know what you think is still missing from the lead in particular and from the article in general. Thank you. --Dianna (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes! I will. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Madagascar periwinkle and cancer
Hi Mathew, this article provides some detail on one of the cancer drugs derived from the Madagascar periwinkle: Vincristine Lemurbaby (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hadji Ali
Hi Mathew, this is just to let you know that I have uploaded a restored version of the image nominated at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hadji Ali. This notice is being delivered to you as you previously voted / commented at the nomination page. BTW, I will be pretty busy this week (moving house) so I'm not sure if I can do much at the Signpost. Saturday hopefully I can get it started if you haven't yet. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I will give it a look tomorrow. Today will be crazy. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For your excellent work copyediting and reviewing articles for GA. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you so much. And I appreciate your suggestions and input on Madagascar, kind of an overwhelming article! So much to cover. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you still want this to go through a community reassessment? These are the current changes since the green dot was added and it looks stable enough judging from the talk page and article history. AIRcorn (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've responded on the GAR page, and I think the article is fine now. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry you walked into a mine field...
Bruised but not broken... | |
Sorry you walked into a mine-field at the pig GAN, but don't hold that against Dana (or myself or any other Wikiproject Equine editors). Most of us really don't like conflict or dealing with it, and would love for you to continue to review our articles. (Although I think I'll point out you probably want to stay away from my pre-1066 bishop articles... (grins)). I should have a pile of bishops and horse stuff going up at GAN in the next few days... you're input is always always welcome! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks so much for the encouragement. Who would've thought over pigs! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
RE: Web archive
Make sure that the URL you're posting isn't http://www.webcitation.org/mainframe.php; make sure that it ends with a group of numbers and letters (e.g. http://www.webcitation.org/65YUybz9A). Check your Email. The URL address for the archive should be found in the Email that WebCite sent you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- ok, thanks. I got an email from them. I see the right url is in the citation now. http://www.webcitation.org/65YUybz9A Your help is appreciated! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
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 readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale 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) 01:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2012
- Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers
- News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
- Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This week's Signpost
I have asked User:Trust Is All You Need for an interview this week as s/he has done much work on Soviet politics. I will be in Bali for a seminar until Friday, so I don't know how much internet time I'll have. I've already started the page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to fill in, especially if you help me out with some questions to ask. Also, any clues can give me ask to format, etc. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I can handle the interview. Just letting you know in case there gets to be a backlog. We have a huge number of FLs this week. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. I'll do whatever is needed. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps trimming the featured lists' summaries would be useful. Most FLs are fairly short, yet the summaries you have are longer than the ones for FAs! I'll trim the Eric B. discography for an example. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- ok, I'll wait and see what you do. I don't like doing the FLs because it's hard to know what to include! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- LOL, we ec'd Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, since we do the FC section we could probably tie an interview in with the featured content process. We could ask about some main differences between FA and GA, how some articles nominated for GA better qualify under FL, and some differences in how the programs are run. We could also learn a bit about the editor's interests and what drives him/her. As for the length... I'd say six is okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've been reading around various places (like the arbcom and different talk pages), and it seems like GA is a relatively trouble-free place. It also seems like Geometry guy is "Mr.GA", although he doesn't seem to actually create much content. But he has a soothing, benign view, I think, and since wiki is having a problem with editor retention (allegedly - hard to know what to think - that NPP report didn't make much sense to me), I'd like to know why GA seems to work (relatively speaking) and I think he's had something to do with that. (I agree the the project reports are very interesting and enlightening.) (I could interview you as you contribute greatly to GAN. How about that?) MathewTownsend (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind, but perhaps next week or so. This week I'll be busy (at the seminar right now... I'll be a speaker tomorrow). Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- For the Hadji Ali picture, the promoted image was the edit. At FPC some nominations have edited copies uploaded under different titles for comparison, like at the Hadji Ali nomination or the blue and white bird current at FPC. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anything published in the US before 1923 is in the public domain, so it is free to use. If an agency is asserting copyright over a PD image, it's copyfraud... i.e. unenforceable. Speaking of the images, usually the promoter indicates which image has been promoted in his/her summary. Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Owsley review
As I stated at Maggie's talk page, it is inappropriate to continue conversation there. You should not have replied on her talk page. This is concerning. As a WMF staff member, she is restricted by law to participate or even look at the content. Mathew, I am uncomfortable with your manner of reviewing the article. The assumptions and accusations have been inappropriate. Ask questions. Don't accuse. I never stated that your review is being made in bad faith. I stated that your opening remark was made in bad faith and inappropriate. You didn't ask me if I wrote it off-wiki, but you asked me where it came from. And no, the article didn't spring into life on February 10, but in July, as I told you. You could have also checked the date yourself. There is a better way of communicating your concerns. As far as the Signpost, I never rely on the Signpost for interpretation of policy or guidelines, but review them directly. The Signpost is merely opinion of various editors. I would recommend that you review and point to policy and guidelines directly with editors, rather than point to the Signpost.
You stated on Moonriddengirl's talk page that you "pointed out this instance of odd language in the review: "The family lived financially conservative, yet never seemed to run out of money by the third week of the month, due to his mother's talent at stretching a meal." I asked what you meant by "lived financially conservative" combined with the "yet never seemed to run out of money" - the two clauses seem to clash, and "lived financially conservative" isn't really grammatical. I suggested alternatives and asked what you meant. You refused to change the wording and the odd language remains in the article.
The above statement is completely lacking in reality.
In reality, you questioned the content, "The family was rather conservative, with neither parent developing a habit of smoking or drinking." Changing it to "The family was rather conservative. Neither parent developing a habit of smoking or drinking." The first version when stating "rather conservative" was qualified with "neither parent developing a habit of smoking or drinking." Your change introduced additionally introduced an incomplete sentence. That said, I completely revised the content to "The family lived financially conservative, yet never seemed to run out of money by the third week of the month, due to his mother's talent at stretching a meal. Her son's favorite dish was a casserole using a mixture of onions, celery, rice, and mushroom soup over ground beef," since you were uncomfortable with it. The term "lived financially conservative" is grammatically correct.
I appreciate Derrick's contributions and manner of interaction. If you are unable to function without continually referring to your mentor, you may want to reconsider your involvement in the GA process. Again, while I welcome your participation, if you are uncomfortable or unable to proceed, please consider requesting an official second opinion. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)