User talk:MathewTownsend

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)

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)

Take a breath, please

I really think you need to step back, take a breath, and allow things to happen without trying to force them to happen. There is no deadline in Wikipedia. Having the article as it is now hurts nothing and no one. If there was a serious BLP/liability concern, an administrator would have noticed it by now (what with all the RfC's you've filed and the discussion at the article talk page) and done something about it if there was a real problem. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and it is appreciated. The fact that it involves a WP:BLP though means that it is not ok just to leave accusatory and defaming information available in a highly trafficked article while we hash this out. I think the responsible solution would be to remove the information accusing Robert Wagner of causing Natalie Wood's death until this is settles. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) It's "libel", not "slander", when in written form.

(2) How do you know for a fact the article is "highly trafficked" or not?

(3) There's nothing in the article that accuses anyone - it is your opinion based on you reading into what's there.

(4) Don't touch what's in there while you have two (and there should really only be one at a time) RfCs going at two different noticeboards.

(5) If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level. And I really, really don't want to do that.

Lhb1239 (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have no intention of "touching" your article. Remember, you asked me to revert the article when you didn't like what was there and were worried about too many reverts yourself, Lhb1239. I see how you operate and I see the article is owned by you. Thanks for the threats.[1] Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

First off: please think about changing your tone and striking your accusation. I am not claiming nor am I exhibiting any signs of article ownership. Secondly: I'm asking you to back off and take some time away from the article because I think you're losing perspective and are bordering on going against policy. Lastly: There was no threat, just an indication of where things seem to be headed based on your zealousness and over-thinking and heavy-handed editing intentions. Please, just let this issue take its course naturally. Regardless of your personal opinion of how the article reads, there is still no deadline in Wikipedia (hint: read the article on that subject before going off half-cocked and doing something you're going to end up regretting). You've been here all of what? Two weeks? Do yourself a favor and listen to those who've been here a while and have an idea of what's what. Okay? Lhb1239 (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: what "threats" are you talking about in regard to the message I left you yesterday? I was asking you to revert what Gertrude Lawrence had reverted so I wouldn't get a 3RR pinned on me. I was asking you to do me a FAVOR. Get it now? Sheesh...... (this is a perfect example of why you need to step away from the computer and Wikipedia for a bit - you're ability to reason and see things for what they are is deteriorating) Lhb1239 (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, and I did you that favor. Even though you reverted me when I removed repeated wording. When I pointed that out to you, you returned my wording to the article. I see you are quick on the revert button. Well, you don't appreciate favors, I see. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You're starting to not go down a good road. Are you sure you want to go this direction? You might want to reassess. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'm new at editing but not at looking around. I don't think I want to be a bullying editor who assumes bad faith like you are and reverts as a way of life. So, if you don't want to be my friend, that's ok with me. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

I've asked for assistance at the Wikiquette Assistance noticeboard for what I see as an increasing lack of civil behavior from you. You can find the report here. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw the answer there where an editor seems to think I am being appropriate, and says "I do not think it is a WQA issue for an editor to talk about "your article" after reading "If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level".[2]

So I urge you to drop your campaign against me. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no "campaign" against you. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK?

Did you know you are in danger of breaking the 3RR rule and are essentially edit warring at Ronald Reagan? Lhb1239 (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see noticeboard/Edit warring where the IP vandalising Ronald Reagan is reported - User:119.239.94.176 reported by Onorem♠Dil (Result:page semi-protected) - after vandalizing the page 19 times between November 26 and December 2. So I am not worried about myself.

I have noticed that you Lhb1239 appear at the Edit warring noticeboard frequently.[3] where it seems from the comments that you don't understand the 3RR rule well. Thanks for pointing that edit warring page out. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The above was merely a "did you know?". If I wanted to be a WP:DICK rather than trying to help out someone who admits he is new and doesn't understand everything about Wikipedia yet, I would have left you a templated 3RR tag (which someone should have done, BTW). You may feel you were in the right to edit war at Ronald Reagan, however, you weren't. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do report me if you think I am engaging in edit warring. You were blocked for edit warring on November 14 for 48 hours, your second block for such behavior.[4][5] MathewTownsend (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to report you, Matt - as I stated above, I was letting you know you had been edit warring. Doing so is my obligation as a Wikipedia community member - it wasn't meant to be an attack, just a friendly warning (that's why I prefaced it with a "DYK?). Still, even though the IP editor was blocked, you could have been blocked as well. It takes two to edit war, after all. Yes, I have been blocked for edit warring previously. I also admitted my error at the time it occured. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. You have continued to make personal attacks against me in edit summaries and at noticeboards and on talk pages. The latest being here. Please stop. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

ok, I have changed the comment per the instructions in your template above, Lhb1239. I don't understand why you restored my comments, just to template me for them. I removed because I thought better of it. My removal was perfectly appropriate, since no one had responded to it. I have seen other editors remove comments and no one has complained, especially when the comments do not add anything and when no one has responded to them.

I'm not worth all this energy you are directing toward me. Please stop threatening to report me for various things. I think you are too focused on my behavior when really I am harmless. If all this is about my view regarding the Natalie Wood article, then I'm sorry you and I disagree about the BLP issues, but we do. You have threatened to "take this to a higher level" above. You have reported me to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance where an editor said he didn't see anything wrong with my behavior.[6] I think it is time now for you to stop making personal comments about me. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Striking your comments was sufficient - and transparent to other editors reviewing the noticeboard. It's best to strike and then redo, but redoing on a noticeboard can be considered refactoring and might be seen as dishonest. And FYI: the personal attack I was referring to was your edit summary (that claimed I am harassing and following you) as well as your personal attacks yesterday in talk page statements along with edit summaries. Edit summaries are meant for brief summaries about why you have made edits, not commentary and certainly not for furthering disputes and making personal attacks. For more information, see WP:EDITSUMMARY.

The WQA was not a "report" but a request for assistance and advice from non-involved parties. If you really believe it's time for others to not make personal comments about you, it might be wiser to look at your own behavior first. None of "this" is about the Wood article. Your increasingly un-civil behavior toward me, however, is wearing quite thin. While you're looking at the article on edit summaries, you also might want to review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 (#3)

Your recent editing history at WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Additionally, please familiarize yourself with policy regarding refactoring comments on talk pages - what is allowable and what is not. Striking through contentious content is preferred over deleting or refactoring, especially at a noticeboard. You can strikethrough what you would like to see removed and then rewrite what you would rather say. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the edit I made. I didn't revert. You reverted twice. I merely added my comments to the page. That is not a revert. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverting is reverting no matter what the reason, no matter in what order it's done. You've made three reverts on that page. Do not revert again or you may be reported for edit warring/violating 3RR and may be blocked as a result. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that I can't post on that page again or you will block me. All I did was add my comments back to a talk page that you had removed. That is not me reveerting. That is you reverting. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR for an understanding of what edit warring is. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173 where an editor says to you:

"Yes, your poorly thought out revert prompted my looking into your editing behavior. As noted above, I'm generally disinclined to make these sort of reports. Had it not been for the fact that you were continuing to serially revert other users in the face of a warning less than a week after your previous block in the same topic area, I would not have made the report. Instead of thinking of this as a witch hunt, think of it as an attempt to reign in your disruptive behavior." aprock (talk) MathewTownsend (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you are edit warring, close to breaking the 3RR rule, personally attacking other editors, putting inappropriate content on article talk pages, and refactoring comments. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

His discription of your behavior is spot on. That is exactly what you are doing now. It is not a revert for me to add my comments to a talk page. You are not king of talk pages and the sole arbitrator of what goes on there. You are harassing me and following me around and reverting me at every chance you get. You are trying to intimidate me and bully me because my position on Natalie Wood is receiving support. I am asking you to stop. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 (#4)

Your recent editing history at Talk:Natalie Wood shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Please do not return the content removed from this talk page. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. See this link for more information. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments on the above

Mathew, seriously dude, you need to stop and think about what you are, and have been doing. Read the article links that have been provided for you, learn about procedure and policy, and stop doing things you very possibly will regret later. Editing Wikipedia is NOT about winning - it's about building an encyclopedia. Ask yourself if that's what you've been doing in the last 24 hours. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read your own words and consider what you've been doing in the last 24 hours! Don't you do anything else but follow me around and try to screw with my posts? Why don't you try to win by being right about the content of the article instead of reverting me every chance you get? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You've left me no choice

The Natalie Wood talk page is not about you, it's not about your concerns, and it's not about what's going on at noticeboards around the Wiki. If you need to reference comments at other noticeboards, do it via placing a link to a diff, but not by copying and pasting large chunks of discussion from other talk pages on an article talk page. Article talk pages are about the article and its contents, that's all. You have cluttered up the article talk page to the point that if anyone wants to try and understand your concerns or anyone else's concerns about the article's content, they will never be able to wade through it all. Because you keep replacing the inappropriate content, I am now forced to take this elsewhere for administrator intervention. You've been warned already about your disruptive behavior today and yesterday, but you insist on exhibiting WP:IDHT. Enough is enough. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DRN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Talk:Natalie Wood". Thank you. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Many apologies

I have just activated some editing preferences, one of which allows editing using right click. My touchpad is very sensitive and seems to have caused me to save an edit to that page which inadvertently removed your content. I am very sorry to have mucked around like that and will be disabling the edit feature. Regards. Leaky Caldron 23:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for responding! Very much appreciated. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring Report filed

Because you have ignored previous warnings given today on your talk page, you have been reported for edit warring/violating 3RR at the Edit Warring Noticeboard. The report can be viewed here. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

advice

The best way to deal with Lhb1239's warnings and the like is to ignore them. When an editor's complaints e.g. WP:WQA and the 3RR aren't getting traction -- e.g. AussieLegend's reply -- it's reasonable to assume the larger Wikipedia community does not share their concerns and they may safely be ignored -- in fact, it's often preferable. Note also that per WP:OWNTALK you can simply remove their comments from here if you'd like, although copying to an archive page is better, if you wish to take the time to do that. Lhb1239 is correct in the general idea that article talk pages should be limited to discussion of the article and that WP:DIFFs are the preferred way to reference a discussion or post elsewhere on Wikipedia. Gerardw (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the advice. I'm going to take it. At first I was overwhelmed by the barrage of orange-bar warnings, but I have calmed down now. Thanks, for taking the time to leave me this nots and help me gain perspective. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Gerard's advice which is sound. I would also recommend WP:TEA to help diffuse problems. You did well, Mathew. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support! I'm going to try to figure out how to set up an archive. I see them on other user pages and I can probably copy what they do. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a description at WP:ARCHIVE. It's easier with a "bot" ... program that does it automatically. I use MiszaBot, but I think User:ClueBot_III is probably better...I'm just too lazy to update my page to use it. Gerardw (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Will it make new archives as necessary or to I learn now to made them? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've thrown a configuration for Miszabot III on the page. You can see the directions here if you would like to change the parameters. I help out answering requests at User talk:Misza13 for this bot. It should archive your page within the next 24 hours. The bot will create the necessary pages for you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tweaked your setup and everything will be automated for you. I removed your extra line (mispelled) about archive size and bumped down the existing size to 150K which is a good average size (50 is a little low but if you want that by all means change it). I changed your archive header to an automated one. What you did have would have transcluded this current talk page into your archives and you really don't want that.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I would empty your archive page...the bot will move everything for you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will try to understand. What you are saying now is that it will all happen automatically, which is GREAT. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Your recent editing history at Natalie Wood shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully you can chill out a bit and take the article less seriously. I don't think Robert Wagner is going to be indicted because a couple details are overly descriptive or a couple words are out of place for a day or two in the article. CarolMooreDC 03:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your words. No, Robert Wagner isn't going to be indicted. Davern's second book is a slanderous publicity piece and won't be taken seriously by the authorities. If you read the sections on the web, you will see that it is basically fiction. Its inclusion in the article violates the policies on living person, something Wikipedia strives mightily to avoid and we should all be ashamed that it is given such prominence in the article. Also, the rest of the "Death" section was inaccurately referenced. And why should it include the accusations about Wagner, but nothing about Davern's questionable behavior? What a mess! Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 (#2 - 12/06/11)

Your recent editing history at Talk:Natalie Wood shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

As stated in the edit summary each time your talk page entry has been removed, what you have placed there violates WP:TPG. Please edit it soon in order for it to meet the TPGs. If you do not comply, I will be forced to take this elsewhere. You have already violated 3RR tonight several times over, seriously - do you want to skate this close to the edge? Lhb1239 (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:TPG say that if a section header should be changed, first discuss with the editor. There was no justification to revert MathewTownsend's entire comment. This warning is not appropriate and best ignored. Gerardw (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Mao Zedong, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Sino-Japanese War (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 11:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

talk page usage

Don't break up another editors's comments like you did here [7]. It's okay to reply between different editors comments, but not in the middle of a single editor's edits. Gerardw (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia many hours daily and have for years. I see that happening all the time with no complaints. It happens on the Arbcom pages, on the AN/I pages and on talk pages of articles and of editors all the time. It is hard to believe that it is not ok to answer directly a comment at the place on the talk page where the comment is made. Could you point to the rule where it states that is not allowed? The time stamps tell the story. If you can, I will spend many days forward pointing out to editors that they have broken a rule! Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This was one comment [8]. You're right, answering directly is fine, but after the comment, not in the middle of it. Gerardw (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Where'd you go......?

At the Natalie Wood talk page I asked for some proof of the things you've said there:

Diff [9] - "...please provide a link to an online source that shows this book for sale is a completely new book separate from the first that was released in 2009"

Diff [10] - "Please provide proof in the form of diffs to back up your repeated claim that I put '29 warnings' on your talk page in one day."

Diff [11] - "I've never said all editors support me. As with the above, please provide proof in the form of diffs to back up your claim."

Prior to the above, at the BLP Noticeboard earlier today I asked for some proof after you accused me of reverting your comments there:

Diff [12] - "I reverted your comments here when, exactly? Either provide diffs that prove it or retract/strike your bad faith and uncivil accusations."

In the past you've been so quick at responding to queries directed toward you. This time I'm confused by your lack of response. Looking forward to hearing back from you on all this.

Lhb1239 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop harrassing me - you have posted her 35 times in the last few days re Natalie Wood

You started out by reverting an edit I made to the page without reading the diff[13]. I pointed out to you on your talk page that I was merely removing repeated wording. You subsequently returned my wording to the page.[14]

Next you asked me to revert content on Natalie Wood on your behalf as you had already reverted twice and didn't want to violate 3-RR.[15]

Then you notified me to revert the page again.[16]

You have posted on my talk page 35 times in the last few days regarding Natalie Wood[17]

You reported me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring[18] where your complaint was closed with no action, and you reported me to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where your complaint was also unfounded[19]. You also reported me to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance[20] where you were told that you were exhibiting ownership of the Natalie Wood page. Please stop posting on this page. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You stated that I placed "29 warnings" on your talk page. Posting on your talk page and putting "29 warnings" are not the same thing. I put edit warring notices on your talk page (because you were edit warring), but I didn't do that a total of 29 times (which is what your false accusation implied). Your accusation was false and misleading. Please be careful what you say and how you say it in Wikipedia - especially when it comes to accusations. The same goes for accusations that someone is harassing you when they aren't. p.s. I have removed my name from the above heading as putting an editor's name in a heading is against WP:TPGs. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, drop it Lhb1239! Now you have posted 36 times on my page in the last few days.[21] Find something else to do! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

They've stated they will [22]. Gerardw (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Since Lhb1239 just finished posting on my page a few minutes ago, I guess he just had to have the last word! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, we have an essay for that, too WP:LASTWORD.Gerardw (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ha! I guess my experience isn't so unusual! Thanks for that! I'm not the only one to go through something like this. Allows me to put it in perspective. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

I think it would be a good idea for you to take a break from the Natalia Wood article and any interaction with use Lhb1239 for awhile. I have asked him to do the same. This could turn in to a rather unpleasant dispute, if you do not both take a step back at this point. Your statement above is valid and warranted, and I hope he heeds it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have already posted on the page that I will no longer be involved with the article. As noted above, being reported to three different noticeboards in one day and having my talk page bombarded with 35 warnings from him in a few days is not worth it. He obviously exerts ownership of the article, and is willing to war. I am more interested in editing content. My only concern regarding that article was the WP:BLP issues. Now that other editors are involved, I believe the article will become more balanced and the accusations that Robert Wagner is responsible for his wife's death will be diminished on the page.

Thanks for your input. It's appreciated. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is very rare to have a dispute where there is only one person behaving in an unhelpful way. As they say it takes two to tango. I hope your break from Natalie Wood will give you time to think about how to avoid such situations in the future, since you are bound to run into editors with strong opinions again.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if there are very many editors like Lhb1239, I will just give up on Wikipedia. His behavior is unreasonable.[23] I'll not bother with Natalie Wood again. I was merely concerned with the WP:BLP angle, but if Wikipedia doesn't care then I won't either. No wonder Wikipedia is losing editors! I'm certainly less interested now, after this experience. I was going to offer to help copy edit your Edward Sapir article, since my undergraduate minor at Berkeley was in Anthropology. But my motivation to put real work into Wikipedia has evaporated. It's just not appreciated. Much of my work formatting of the references on Natalie Wood was reverted! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to lie to you: Wikipedia does have a problem with welcoming new editors. However as I note it helps a lot if also new comers make sure to treat others in the way that they would like to be treated themselves - considering that often other editors have been working on specific articles for a long time - and that sometimes when you enter in new information you are also changing their work, that has sometimes been the result of lengthy discussions and deliberations. If you stick around on wikipedia you will have both many frustrating and many rewarding experiences. I would certainly appreciate your collaboration on Edward Sapir, and if you ever need to talk to someone about how best to handle a frustrating experience, you are also welcome to come to me. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I wish I could tell you running into problematic editors was rare -- I can't, but I can say they're a minority. In time, you learn how to function without it bothering you too much. If there are just two editors who have a significant disagreement it's really hard to come to consensus. Personally, I like to start WP:RFCs. I've been monitoring Natalie Wood and it does seem like there are enough editors there that a good outcome will occur. Gerardw (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And "ec" means "edit conflict" ... I was typing my reply at the same time as Maunus, so when I pressed Save Page I got a notice from the system. So you just copy and paste your response with the added "ec" -- it tells the reader I wrote my response before I read Maunus's. Gerardw (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm already exhausted from defending myself against all Lhb1239's attacks (where he has been told to back off[24] and that he is wrong in his interpretation of reverts[25] and that Lhb1239 should drop the WP:STICK, stay away from MathewTownsend's talk page, stop reverting MathewTownsend's talk page comment,[26]). This plus his bombardments of my talk page, his attacks at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and his three noticeboard reports on me. Even though he was unsuccessful, it is not worth the energy to be constantly defending myself on noticeboards, nor have a yellow banner flash every time I try to edit another article. I am unwilling to expose myself to further abuse by Lhb1239 and won't participate in anything further regarding Natalie Wood. He can own the page. I'm done with it. It is useless. He will persist. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that is probably best both for the article and for you. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Your recent edits to Natalie Wood were not helpful - they only served to inflame conflict. I have protected the article pending talkpage discussion - it seems very likely that you will not agree with the outcome of that discussion. If you choose to try to force the turn of events by being bold without generating consensus I will see myself forced to block you for disruption. You need to either start working with rather than against other editors on the talkpage, or take a break from editing Natalie Wood.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• response to Maunus
• his reply

Kroeber

Great that you've gone to work on Kroeber. That article also needs attention - if you need sources send me an email. I have resurces that you might use. Best.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I just made one edit to Kroeber! ok, I'll consider your offer but I'm not an anthropologist. And I'm not so much into serious writing these days as much as copy editing. I'll email you for sources and see if I can make something out of them. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Colt

Just wanted to say I appreciate the help with the article. When I first wrote it, I had never heard of John colt previously, I was actually reading a book about his brother, Samuel Colt in hope of improving that article and read about the murder in a half a sentence. I googled him and found all this source material. I guess when I write, I take things for granted on what people know because of the source material. Thanks for helping fill in a few gaps and such...I have had it up at GA since September or October and it is currently under review. Your edits have been extremely helpful. Thanks again.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It's a fascinating story, really stranger than fiction. I think the article will pass GA. And I'm happy to help out in any way I can. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That was my take on it, too. I read a line in a biography to the effect of: "he spent considerable money on the defense of his brother who was on trial for a murder in New York City" and I thought it would just be an old murder story until I read the details (how he tried to dump the body, how his embellished background came back to haunt him, and the suicide/fire in the prison) and saw how the press at the time treated it, how it influenced the Oblong Box, and the courtroom details were like a primitive CSI episode or something like that. It was kind of creepy at some points, but I thought it would make a decent wiki article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism

This edit was likely not vandalism, just poorly worded trivia. Please be more careful when you revert edits by editors and label them vandalism - doing so can scare away new editors who have the capability of making helpful and productive contributions in the future. For more information on what is and isn't considered vandalism, please read WP:VANDAL. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi MathewTownsend, I am not currently taking on any additional adoptees at the moment, as I don't have sufficient time to invest. However, I'm certainly available for questions, in case you have any specific things you want to know. Also, I may have time early next year, I'll keep you posted. You might want to have a look at WP:ADOPT for other adopters. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

ok. Hope you do keep me posted. And I'll keep you in mind for questions. Thanks so very much. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CHINA Barnstar

		The China Star
		I, Ferox Seneca, do hereby award you, Mathew Townsend, with this China Star for your role in improving the article "Sanzo Nosaka". Your suggestions and involvement were instrumental in raising the article to Good Article status.
		this WikiAward was given to MathewTownsend by Ferox Seneca (talk) on 05:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, wow, wow! Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The new name

Added explanation to User:Nobody_Ent. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ronald Reagan. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)