Jump to content

User talk:MathewTownsend: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MathewTownsend (talk | contribs)
14,937 edits
MathewTownsend (talk | contribs)
14,937 edits
O'Leno State Park sink
Line 12: Line 12:
}}
}}
{{semi-retired}}
{{semi-retired}}
[[File:Paul Cézanne, Les joueurs de carte (1892-95).jpg|thumb|300px]]
[[File:O'Leno State Park sink01.jpg|right|300px]]
[[File:WikiThanks.png]]
[[File:WikiThanks.png]]


Revision as of 18:56, 29 December 2012

SEMI-RETIRED
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

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:

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) [reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Association (ecology)
Hawking (TV film)
Expertise reversal effect
Trauma Systems Therapy
Hasvik Airport
Vardø Airport, Svartnes
Selective abstraction
Jerry S. Wiggins
Mehamn Airport
Emotionality
Persistence (psychology)
Information bias (epidemiology)
Clique
No abstract available bias
Spectrum bias
Surgency
Interpersonal and social rhythm therapy
Situationism (psychology)
Osek (Strakonice District)
Cleanup
Motivation
Self-concept
Wonder Twins
Merge
Subfields of psychology
Personality
Gender performativity
Add Sources
Timeline of psychology
Nicholas Spanos
Susan Clancy
Wikify
Clipping (gridiron football)
National Law University, Orissa
Nyiva Mwendwa
Expand
Politics of memory
Else Frenkel-Brunswik
Animal sexual behaviour

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawking lists

Are you going to start a discussion about the four lists embedded within the biography Stephen Hawking? You tagged it but I don't see a discussion specifically about lists. There's only some question about the placement and contents of the awards list. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. I was called away for a while just after I put the tag on the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you! Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for the tag, as the issue is mostly placement, the lists are properly sourced and appropriate. There is nothing "poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate" about them. Further, the tag appears to be compromising the potential for this article to become a TFA. I really think that if no one has a problem with moving the one list down with the others and tweaking the subheading title, just do it. As for prosifying the lists, I don't see how one can, but nothing is stopping you from doing so and putting your suggested change on the talk page; if it can be done, I'd take a serious look at it. Montanabw(talk) 21:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see SandyGeorgia's and Slp1's on the article talk page on the same matter. And SandyGeorgia's further comments. e.g. "I think FAR in a few months (when FAR instructions allow) is a better option here than TFAR. I'm disappointed that the community if !voting for such an article to appear on the mainpage, and I don't understand why folks do that."[1] MathewTownsend (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you've never actually taken an article through the FA gauntlet, which is generally very difficult and quite thorough. I'm so tired of people who contribute little content being excessively critical to those who do. My own view is that if an FA has a little trouble, then fix it, don't go through all the "drahmah" of throwing it out and making other people do a whole ton of work; if you have the problem, then you fix it. Usually a solid recommendation is well-received. See WP:SOFIXIT Montanabw(talk) 17:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your bad faith is not helping you.[2] You've already been reprimanded once.[3] Now you continue with your ill faith.[4]

And then once again on my talk page! I've seen nothing to indicate your judgment is good regarding the Hawking article, and your previous intrusions into my business have not demonstrated any sort of skill, writing or otherwise. Do you really think that trashing others, such as SandyGeorgia is going to help you?[5] I suggest you adapt a more mature attitude.

You are just plain wrong about the Hawking article.[6] MathewTownsend (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Montanabu, I'm sorry that you have such difficulty understanding what is going on. Please read the posts more carefully. For example, when you said this:

  • Support: The cn tags are all in one sentence, placed on separate clauses by a user with a contribs history that shows an obvious POV to push- an put there only a week after the article was promoted; apparently the lead editors haven't gone back and cleaned them up. This is an extremely minor nitpick. The TFA is appropriate, and any minor copyediting can and undoubtably will be completed prior to the main page appearance Montanabw(talk) 21:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[7][reply]

the immediate response to your comment was the following:

Good faith should indicate that an established user, who says that an assertion is not in the cited source, is familiar with that source. Good faith should also make us reluctant to accuse established users of pushing a POV. Articles appearing on the main page should be free of such concerns. Has anyone active on the article, or this nomination, contacted the user who added the tags? Kablammo (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[8][reply]

Thus you were gently reprimanded for failing the assume good faith and accusing "established users of pushing a POV." If you don't consider that a reprimand, then I can only think you are accustomed to receiving such comments that you are failing to act in good faith.

That wasn't a reprimand at me, that was just a general statement of guidelines. And I believe that right after, Bencherlite popped over here. Montanabw(talk) 18:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are accusing me of psychological projection and other mumbo jumbo. Grow up.

And I'm the one being accused of being rude and not assuming good faith? PleaseMontanabw(talk) 18:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia indicates that you misunderstand the FAC process and finds your comments "unconstructive".[9] Read the problems detailed regarding Steven Hawking. In no way does removing the word "Major" fix the problems with the lists. The article will probably go to WP:FAR unless you and others are willing to do more that remove one word Major to "fix" it.[10]

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

Sandy posts comments that suggest that she appears to think that everyone who doesn't agree with her is stupid. I have no interest whatsoever in what Sandy Georgia thinks, nor do I have any respect for her because I think she is mean-spirited. I've spent enough time at the FAC and GAN process with multiple articles to know that it's total hell for the content contributors who are trying to write good articles, because all you need is someone with an agenda or a narrow POV, or some bee in their bonnet, and an excellent article can easily be derailed, as you did, Mathew, to my good friend Dana boomer. Montanabw(talk) 18:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm here to remind Montanabw that her "psychological projection" mumbo jumbo is a personal attack. Added to her failure to AGF, and her other inappropriate personalization at Talk:Stephen Hawking, this adds up to WP:BATTLEGROUND. Stop it. Now, Montana. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooo Sandy! I'm Sooooooo scared of you! If you were aware of the history between Mathew and me, you would see that Mathew has never shown the least amount of AGF toward me and has consistently subjected me to these ad hominem attacks and massive insults. So really, I'm sick of this whole conversation. And please, if you really don't want to be educated about a legitimate psychological phenomena, then let me explain it to you in simple terms: Psychological projection is "twinkle, twinkle little star, what you say is what you are." Therefore, if you call me stupid and immature, that means that you are the person who is that very thing, but instead you "project" it onto someone else. We all learned that in grade school. So, Sandy, my dear, YOU stop it. Now! Montanabw(talk) 18:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, if you're so sick of this conversation, why don't you stop replying to it! You've make personal attacks repeatedly on my page, Talk:Stephen Hawking, TFA talk, and Malleus's. You have been warned once already. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am VERY sick of this conversation and will gladly stop replying when you and your good friend Sandy stop calling me stupid, telling me I don't know what I am talking about, that I am immature, ignorant and generally evil, misinterpreting what I try to explain to you, refuse to grant me the good faith you accuse me of not having, making threats like telling me I have been "warned" for nothing, and generally spewing forth extremely vicious personal attacks on me that are hurtful, unkind, ad hominem in nature and which I feel I must respond to, lest I allow a false accusation against me to go unanswered and be deemed admitted. Truly, if you agree to cease making personal attacks on me, I will, in turn, be glad to avoid this page entirely. Montanabw(talk) 19:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, you deleted my one comment on your talk page with a false edit summary: "Toss suggestbot". Stop posting on my page. I don't care what problems you have with other editors. Don't post here. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Montana, regardless of your history with anyone (which is of no concern to me), we have an FA proposed at TFAR that needs substantial work, and you are the only editor personalizing issues on the talk page. Please leave Mathew alone, and refrain from adding any more comments maligning editors to the various pages where you are spreading them. If you have comments about content, by all means share them: stop personalizing.

@ Mathew, Montana's recent comments are concerning in a troubling (creepy) kind of way. You are certainly free to ignore my counsel, but I suggest your best path at this point is to simply no longer respond to any provocative posts any place where she might make them-- they speak for themselves. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I won't respond any longer. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid of Sahure

Hello ! I renominated the article on the Pyramid of Sahure. Strangely your comment dating back to Septembre 2012 "this article is being reviewed" appears on the GA nomination page. I don't know how to remove it ? Unless you want to review the article again (I responded to your comments and implemented all required changes), the "this article is being reviewed" note must be removed, otherwise nobody will review the article again. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm really very sorry. My bad. I completed the paperwork for the first nomination. Good luck on your new one. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your help. I hope the comment "this article is being reviewed" will disappear from the nomination page soon (it is still there for the moment). Otherwise, do you know if I need to withdraw the nomination and nominate again ? Iry-Hor (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is a real mess, I removed the "this article is being reviewed" note on the nomination page, but the link on the nomination page sends to the old review and clearly states that a review is ongoing. Also on the talk page of the article, it says the article is a nominee and is currently being reviewed by an editor. I think the GA nomination bot got confused because te old nomination was not closed. I really don't know what to do, if you know what to do, please tell me, I would be happy to renominate the article. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed ok when I originally fixed it yesterday and went to a new review page. The bot must have screwed it up! I'll ask on the GA talk page. Someone there will know how to fix it! Again, I'm really sorry that you have to go through this. I know they can straighten it out! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and thanks again for your precious help ! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kerry Bog Pony/GA1

Mathew, I'm guessing that from the fact that you haven't been back to this one, and from what's occurring above here on this talk page, that you don't want to continue with this review. If so, I'll close it down—or, if you'd prefer, you can end it yourself as "not listed"—so a new review can start. Please let me know your preference; one way or another, I'd like to get the nomination unstuck. Many thanks, and I'm sorry this has been so unpleasant. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually ready to pass it. I have no problem with Dana boomer at all. Just with Montanabw. If she stays out out it (it was Dana boomer's nomination), I'm ready to pass it after one last go through. Thanks, and best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good to know. I'll leave it to you, then, and best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working memory

Hi MathewTownsend! I hope you're still semi-around so you'll see this message. You put a tag on Working memory saying that it has an unclear citation style. I cannot see the problem! Could you please explain? With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 10:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Just telling you I've removed your tag. Lova Falk talk 10:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas


Tomcat (7) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tomcat7 for the Christmas greeting! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writing centres etc.

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

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

'Tis that season again...

Happy Holidays!
Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, Mathew! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ed for thinking of me and wishing me Happy Holidays! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!


TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello MathewTownsend! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much GeneralUser and I wish you a great new year! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

Happy Holidays!
From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MONGO of thinking of me and I wish you very Happy Holidays! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Good article reviews

Hello Matthew, thank you for your really useful User Page, as well as for reviewing our article. I had a small question about Wikipedia etiquette. Can anybody review an article for Good Article review or is there a certain edit count needed, or admin status? For example, would it be appropriate for me to review an article from a more senior editor? Ramwithaxe 08:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramwithaxe,
No admin status needed!
At Wikipedia:Good article nominations it says good articles can be "reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article." On the same page, there is a section titled "How to review an article" with specific instructions on the things you need to know. And below that, how to Pass, put on Hold, Fail, or ask for a Second Opinion.
You can also read Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles (lots of good advice here) and ask questions at the Wikipedia:Good article help desk where you can ask for a "mentor" to help you out in the beginning. I did and it was very helpful as some things, like the formatting, was hard for me to understand at first.
Also, if you run into problems (as I just did!) you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations.
And feel free to ask me!
Best wishes and have a wonderful new year! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MathewTownsend&oldid=530333506"