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)

DID page

I wanted to give you the - YOU made tylas happy award, but I could not find one, so you get two instead!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Awarded to MathewTownsend for his untiring responsiveness in the torrent of chatter that has characterized the Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder page the last couple of days, as well as his multiple valuable contributions to the article itself. ~ty (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

		Civility Award
		Awarded to MathewTownsend for his unfailing politeness while working on the Wikipedia DID article in the face of some of the toughest obstacles probably found on Wikipedia! ~ty (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to keep trying to improve the DID page, you may be interested in this activity. In an effort to be fair I'm trying to identify the edits that are worth keeping, and in the process logging what is wrong with many of the others. The best activity on the page is simply noting new sources and good blocks of text to incorporate in the new version I think. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to do as you suggest. The method used on that page is difficult. Wikipedia is so slow that I could only get through a few of your links to "edits worth keeping" and figure out the context before I gave up. Is there some other method that could be used? MathewTownsend (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think so. One advantage I have over you (I'm assuming) is greater familiarity with the sources themselves (and I wrote much of the previous page). It's pretty easy for me to see when a source or statement is suspect because it's surprising and out of kilter with the sources I've read.

The best option would be to find any articles published in 2011 or 2012 and read them. There are a surprising number of them, and the articles (not books) are pretty good at touching on both sides. There are a bunch of full-text citations available (anything heavily cited here would probably work) but I draw your attention in particular to this, this, this, this, this, Spiegel et al. 2011 and any other 2011-12 sources if you can find it on google. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

well I'm quite familiar with DID but not the current wikipedia article. That's why I'm so shocked at the current state of the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to either revert now, or please feel free to edit the draft on my subpage directly if you think that's superior. The old version needed to be updated anyway, so I have no attachment to what currently exists. It's sole advantage is that it's more MOS and NPOV compliant than the mess currently on the page. Given your objections, it looks like even if we disagree in terms of facts and interpretation of sources (for instance, you might think "my" version places too much emphasis on iatrogenesis) at least we've a comparable understanding of what to base it on (i.e. the policies and guidelines). The latter point is where all my issues with Tylas originate - she has no understanding of what "neutral" means and believes her experience of DID is the "right" one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia procedures to revert the page i.e. what the ramifications might be - that I get blocked or something? As a former believer of the Colin Ross school, then a quick convert to an iatrogenesis model when it came to testifying in court, probably we won't disagree on that point. Unfortunately, I haven't kept up on the recent research enough to easily make statements in that article, or with the history of advocacy groups for DID. (In fact, I'm not sure what they're advocating, unless its something like the Attachment therapy and Attachment disorder people and their advocacy groups.) For me, it's easier to try to rewrite the article, than to work in a sandbox, although I could try it, I guess. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You could get blocked for violating the three revert rule. To avoid that - don't revert more than three times in one 24-hour period. You could get blocked for POV-pushing, but that's much more complicated and as long as you stick to the sources, policies and guidelines, will not happen. With the clear consensus for a revert at WT:MED, there's pretty much no issue. If you think the version reverted to is superior to the version it replaced, you are free to maintain it through further reverts (see WP:BRD). A revert is an expression of an opinion, you as an editor are pefectly within your rights to express that opinion, there are no rules stopping you.

So what I think I'll do is paste in "my" version to the main page and see where things go. You can pretty much never get in trouble by sticking to the sources, policies and guidelines. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea to past "your" version to selected places in the article. But I have a question about the three revert rule. Does adding tags like {{not in citation}} considered a revert? Does adding text without removing or changing the text already there count as a revert? MathewTownsend (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean "paste" rather than "past"? If you think yesterday's version of the page has sections that are clearly superior, then you are by all means entitled to edit the current version to include them.

What constitutes a revert gets messy when there are intervening edits. This page will almost certainly be messy and require judgement rather than a clear decision. I suggest reading WP:3RR and realizing that if any blocks are issued, it will be based on the judgement of the administrator responsible. If you are nervous about being blocked, I would suggest making your changes. If anyone undoes them, simply do not redo them. Bring it up on the talk page instead. And specifically, re-adding tags can be a revert, as does re-adding new text. The central idea is an opposed edit rather than any one block of text.

Also, realize that this is not a normal situation for a page, I would characterize it as pathological. It is unusually acrimonious, and exacerbated by Tylas being, in my opinion, unarguably ignorant of the policies and how they apply. Though doubtless she would consider this hypocritical, and perhaps it is, she is exhibiting considerable ownership of the page. I believe the difference between us is that I understand and am guided by the appropriate P&G, she appears to be guided by primarily what makes sense for her as someone who has experienced DID. I hope my posts on the talk page make this distinction clear. This is one of the most frustrating situations on wikipedia, where one editor does not grok how wikipedia works. In my experience, generally the rude shock of a block for edit warring is required to make an inexperienced editor appreciate the rules. I know my first block did (though the next couple blocks...that's just me being too stubborn for my own good; perfectly justified of course of course of course). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to say thank you for your ongoing efforts to camly work on the DID page. They are greatly appreciated, I realize what a burden it is to be involved in an effort like this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am speechless and all smiles

Thank you so much Sir! You are doing what has been impossible in the past! :) ~ty (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hang in there Mathew! There has never been so much hope of having an accurate DID article! breath! It does wonders! ~ty (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Tylas! It would be a miracle if the article was accurate! People don't understand that collaboration is good! The more "eyes" the better, including yours. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mathew! That includes yours as well!~ty (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! You can bonk me on the head if you want. I need a break! I was getting confused as to who was doing what. I was in shock that WLU would cite Howell. She is incredible and totally brilliant! Forgive me! :)~ty (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Good Morning Mathew! I know you are busy, but can I bother you for some help on editing? Doc has me doing something that is new to me and I an struggling. I have 2 issues. 1 - I can't get the sentences to fit together as you will see in my sandbox and 2- Once a reference is written as how do I add the actual quote from a reference to it. Doc left some examples using a full reference to follow, but not one like that. Sandbox

You fixed issue 1! Thank you! I am better there is a template for issue 2 that I just don't know of! It would be a regular citation but with the addition in it of the original quote from the text. Oh! Never mind! I found it! I just have to open the template box to show more options. Duh! Thank You!!! I think it will be easy now! Actually I still have an issue. I do not know how to use the same citation twice once it's been shortened. I bet there is an easy fix for that one too!~ty (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

well, there's all sorts of explanations and style:

• Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods
• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example style
• Wikipedia:Citation templates

The easiest (for me) is to give each reference a name the first time you use it. e.g. <ref name="foo">{{cite ....etc., give the full reference. The next time you use it, you can use the shortcut <ref name="foo" /> with a slash and it will call up the same reference. Make sense? MathewTownsend (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes! So in the template box I just put foo in the appropriate place (will have to look) and then open up that template and put in the direct quote? MathewTownsend (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh no! That's at least 2 bonks on the head you owe me! I caused problems again! I looked and the history list says you were fixing the citations I was working on! I have been messing that up by copy and pasting the whole text from my sandbox! I am sorry. I am done with the merek quotes now and taking a break then going to add those from the text book Doc suggested. I won't mess up your fixes again - at least I will try my best not to! Sorry!!!! 19:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I read your comments on the peer review page. I have to apologize. I thought you have been playing games with me - going back and forth from one position to another. I think our only disagreement is if sociocongnivie is a minority POV or not. Shaking hands - hope you don't hold any grudge. Perhaps I was lost in my own assumed battle, since a real one has gone on the page for so long - anyway - it's nice to have it narrowed down to what we actually do disagree on - let me know if I have this wrong though - please! Also so you understand, the general information I put on the talk page is not for you - it's for anyone out there who might be listening and who might come and help edit. I in no way think you do not know what you are talking about, but I do think that the sociocognive POV needs to be reduced to one paragraph. It confuses people how it's done now, intertwining the 2 views. Again - sorry! I know you have been getting angry with me and I am not trying to make you angry.~ty (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter

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

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

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

Page Triage newsletter

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Rollbacker and reviewer

Hi, MatthewTownsend. I have granted you rollback and reviewer permissions, as you are a trusted knowledgeable editor who is ready for these extra permissions. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. -- Dianna (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at that! This is so well deserved! Congratulations!!!! ~ty (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dianna, and thanks for thanking me Tylas!  !!!!!! (I can out do you!) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Five

Stop by for a tasty glass of wiki-iced tea at the Teahouse, today!

Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteers who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
• More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
• Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
• New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
• Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

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) 08:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Lynn et al.

It's already integrated, ref 27. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

And your next edit to the talk page is again a repeat. I was using that section to hold references that hadn't been integrated yet, did you have a different approach in mind? Just curious, I was in the habit of removing citations I'd put in the article, but I can stop if you're doing something different. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the purpose of your list. Sorry. I don't see the purpose of a list of sources "not used", as if the point it to use them somehow! I think it would be helpful to have a list somewhere (besides references) that clearly lays out the sources used or could be used and why, by year. It would also be helpful to note how many times they are used, as some are listed several times (many, many) in the references (I know the reasons why) but it disguises how many times the same source is used - some may be used too much. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Meh, feel free to adapt it. I've been through the recent ones and I think I've integrated what I could find. Some I'm waiting on reprint requests, some probably can't be used. If I do integrate something I'll note it, but get wacky with it if you want, it's pretty much served its purpose as far as I (the original drafter) am concerned. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

yes, it's fine for you but not for new editors who want to edit the article. It makes everything very confusing and hard to understand what has and what has not been done. The only thing for a new editor to do is to go through all the citations again, try to figure out what they say, search for new articles etc. I think it puts off editors from editing the article though good for you. The editing is not transparent because of this. I'm not sure I'm willing to put all the work into it necessary to make it a good article. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll go through the citations to consolidate the duplicates I find so at least the main page will be easier to navigate. If you think the talk page is hard to navigate with the list of sources, feel free to remove them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

• Op-ed: The Athena Project: being bold

• News and notes: FDC portal launched

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Featured content: Casliber's words take root

• Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:59, 7 August 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!

Stubs				Cleanup
		Moldova at the 2000 Summer Olympics				Interpretation of Schizophrenia
		Jerome Drayton				Wheel sizing
		The Commissar Vanishes				Allied technological cooperation during World War II
		Qu (poetry)		Merge
		Madagascar at the 2008 Summer Olympics				Little Big Painting
		Automotive industry by country				Road network in Tamil Nadu
		Uganda at the 2008 Summer Olympics				Attachment-based psychotherapy
		Qatar at the 2008 Summer Olympics		Add sources
		Ingrid Martz				Vladislav Listyev
		Peru at the 2008 Summer Olympics				Léon Gambetta class cruiser
		Panama at the 2000 Summer Olympics				David King (designer)
		Quantangshi		Wikify
		Seychelles at the 2008 Summer Olympics				Nike+ FuelBand
		Greg Mohns				Attachment theory and psychology of religion
		Bonacaud				Separation anxiety disorder
		Alexander Bastrykin		Expand
		Paraguay at the 2008 Summer Olympics				Gloire class cruiser
		Modern Chinese poetry				Chinese poetry
		El Salvador at the 2008 Summer Olympics				Argentina at the 1960 Summer Olympics

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Books

Hi,

I noticed your addition of McNally to DID; even though that is a web-based version of the book, it's still considered a book and I would suggest including it in a "Further reading" section per the guide to layout (specifically WP:FURTHER). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I read what was available and was thinking of sticking a sentence in the article about the politics of child abuse and referencing it. You can remove it if you think its wrong. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My initial comment was mostly just a notification about the appropriate (IMO) section to put it in. Whether it's a good candidate for further reading is more complicated, since it's about "trauma" in general, not DID specifically. I own, but haven't read, a copy and I don't know how much it actually discusses DID (I do know that it uses MPD more than DID though).

Generally if you put something in as a reference (which I think would be a good idea in this case, it's definitely reliable but I had yet to figure out where to slot it in) you don't include the same book in FURTHER unless it's a well-respected, book-length discussion of the topic. If you do put it in as a ref, my opinion would be that it's appropriate to remove it from FURTHER. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's about the "politics" in psychology in general. It gives a good description of an incident in 2002 (I believe) when the American Psychology Association published a well researched article concluding that adult sex with children was not necessarily harmful to the child. There was a big brouhaha, and even Congress got involved and the APA agreed to have the article reviewed by the National Science Foundation - which found that the article was impeccably researched and the conclusions sound. Just the conclusions were politically unpopular. The author is discussing memory of traumatic events in general and concludes that they do not get indelibly engraved in memory. He also talks about "recovered memory". It seems to me that the DiD people want to put DID in its own class and not related the the rest of the body of knowledge in psychology. What are the credentials of a "recovered memory therapist"? The DID area seems strangely detached from the field as a whole. Is there a description of what they do exactly? I have other questions too. (If this field is so vitally important, why is there so little basic research on it?) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Rind et al. controversy. From my recall the page still needs a rewrite and integration of some outstanding sources. Bruce Rind made the mistake of attending what turned out to be a pro-pedophilia conference (from what I understand, quiet unaware that it was, though I've yet to see a reliable source that makes the point) and basically everyone's used that as a reason to discount his study despite two replications and it's ultimately hopeful conclusion (child abuse isn't irrevocably life-destroying in all cases). I hadn't realized Remembering Trauma had a section on Rind, that's useful to know and I might actually get off my arse to do something with it since I've got a hard copy.

McNally was supposed to be one of the books that put the nail in the coffin of repressed memories, in large part by pointing out that in most cases the problem isn't memories disappearing, but that they were intrusive, in quite horrible ways, in most people's lives. I could be wrong. Recovered-memory therapy does exist as a page, but I've never actually gone through it to ensure the sources are up to snuff and the page is overall well-written. DID, RMT, repression, The Courage to Heal, Freud, childhood courtroom testimony, Elizabeth Loftus, the memory wars, satanic ritual abuse, are all intertwined like a rat king and it's pretty hard to talk about one without talking about the other. I actually got to DID via my work on SRA, and that page itself needs the section on DID expanded. Despite many links between them, there's a surprising dearth of truly reliable sources on the topics. Possibly because they were politically unpopular, touched on issues people would prefer not be true, but are gruesome enough to be popular on talk shows. Memory wars doesn't exist, but it might actually be the one uniting thread of all these issues (Frederick Crews wrote a series of articles on the topic, but I didn't make the time or find the sources to put together a full page on it).

As part of my gathering of sources for DID, I've actually been in conversation with several authors - including Harrison Pope, Harold Merskey, and most recently Scott Lilienfeld (who pointed me to the 6th edition of Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis). All three were very open in their discussions and quite willing to talk about it with me. Unfortunately my main purpose was to gather sources, so most of the discussions centred on that rather than the generalities of the field (and personal communication isn't a RS). If you're curious about the topic and wish to discuss in general (for personal interest, 'cause again e-mail isn't a RS) they would probably be happy to do so (they were with me anyway). You're a fellow mental health professional too, so you might speak closer to the same language. If you do get in touch, feel free to mention my user ID. Doubt you'll get any credit for it, but at least they'll have an idea this isn't out of the blue. Plus, you can get PDFs of some highly relevant sources that touch more broadly on the issues (trauma, dissociation, memory, repressed memory, recovered memory, survivor groups, etc.). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel I have a good grasp of what is going on re DID, having been immersed in the history of psychology for years, evaluated patients with these various afflictions, testified in court etc. and am somewhat sick of the subject. I was rather startled to read on the DID talk page that "Every authority in the field is a member of the ISSTD". Hopeless. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

p.s. as you probably know, the research of Elizabeth Loftus, by offering data that eye witness testimony is unreliable, adds to the concept that "memory" is not unbiased recording of what really happened. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, quite aware. One day I intend to read her The Myth of Repressed Memory, sadly it's probably too old to be used as a source on wikipedia. I actually corresponded with her a couple years ago, seeking an image for her wikipage. I find the "lost in the mall" debate interesting because it simultaneously raises the point that false memories are rather easily created - and questions whether such "memories" are relevant to trauma, or if traumatic memories are processed in a unique or different manner.

One part of being an editor I find neat is the opportunity and reason to talk to researchers, most of whom are quite willing to supply sources and sometimes will talk at length. Still a poor substitute for access to a university library though :( WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Blush - apologies for that

Your talk page is on my watchlist - and I just had a bit of a slip that ended up me clicking 'rollback' where I shouldn't - I immediately self-reverted, but I want to apologies for the strangeness that I just put on your page history... :( Fayedizard (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you again. Even by mistake! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Charles Dennis Easley

Hello MathewTownsend, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Charles Dennis Easley to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I do understand the difference, but I'm having a hard time using the Curation bar. The choices don't fit on my monitor without effort and I have difficulty finding the right tag. I'll be more careful in the future. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

Hi mathew, i chose to be your instructor at the academy. We'll start when you are ready. Let me know. Regards. —ΛΧΣ21™ 21:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Great! I arrived home and we can start with the first assignment. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. After you are finished with it, come back to me so I cann give you your first test. Regards. —ΛΧΣ21™ 00:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you ready with the article I gave to you? Please come back to me when you are ready. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

• Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden

• News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias

• Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration

• Featured content: On the road again

• Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit

• WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution

• Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This Month in Education: August 2012

This Month in Education – Volume 1, Issue 1, August 2012 Headlines Welcome to the first This Month in Education newsletter! EduWiki Conference, UK "Students Write Wikipedia", Czech Republic Reaching out to different target groups in Germany Involving more professors in the Wikipedia Education Program in Brazil Working with International Baccalaureate students at ITESM-Campus Ciudad de México Cairo Pilot wraps up successfully with conference Project TAO at Wikimania: Promoting Wikipedia among Seniors "Wikipedia for Seniors": Upcoming Presentation at WikiCon 2012 (Austria) To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 18:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Official names

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Official names. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Add teahouse to welcome template?

As you were involved in a previous discussion regarding this issue, I am informing you of a new discussion proposing that the Teahouse be linked from the Welcome template(s). The discussion can be found here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, your comment "Besides, "Teahouse" is for women, presumably." reads as rather insultingly sexist. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but please try to consider your words more carefully. As an historical note, a Teahouse was originally for men only. It was a place for men to gather and discuss serious matters, where the women could not intrude or interfere. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I was going by the promotional stuff before the Teahouse was launched. I was following it closely so I know what the supposed purpose was and I also saw all the images which were of British/American type white girls in Jane Austen type clothing. So now it's a new image? How many people do you get from outside US/Brit? It was all designed originally to appeal to females - that was the promotional to WMF. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

CVUA 2

Hi Mathew, are you still interested in following with the vandalism classes? — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

yes, I'll take the test. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)