Jump to content

User talk:MathewTownsend/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Sejny Uprising at GAN

Since you are already familiar with the historical context, you may be interested in reviewing this article, I think it will be the last one from that time-period and region for now (although I am still reviewing various Poland-related B-class articles, seeing which merit GA-class review). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

ok, will do. All the fighting over Sejny is still perplexing to me! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MathewTownsend. You have new messages at Al Ameer son's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Al Ameer son (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Invitation to WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

re:Doreen

I think addressed all your issues for Hurricane Doreen (1977). YE Pacific Hurricane 17:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

ok, I'll get on it. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about my mistake here and for edit conflicting you. Feel free to pass now. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
no big deal! I've already passed it and just need to finish the bookwork! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Solomon Islander and Tongan Olympic GANs

They are ready for another look over. Thanks for reviewing them! --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Barbados Olympic GAN

I have prepped the article for GA based on your concerns. Let me know if anything else comes up, and I'd like to thank you for reviewing the article. --Starstriker7(Talk) 06:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It has passed! Good work! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help at Fu (poetry)!

Thanks Mr. Townsend for your input and reviewing over at fu (poetry). What do you think the article needs next to shoot for a Featured nomination?  White Whirlwind  咨  20:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Featured articles. Let me see if I can find an editor that may be able to help you. Do you follow Wikipedia:Featured article candidates to see the things nominators are asked to do? I'll look around for an editor interested in Chinese history and Chinese art. I'm just not knowledgeable enough in either to be of much help. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Pont du Gard

Hi Mathew, I'm afraid it's going to be a couple of days before I can give you a substantive response to your GA review of Pont du Gard, but I'll pick it up shortly. Thanks very much for your assistance and patience! Prioryman (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That's ok. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Matthew, I was in the process of editing the article to resolve the issues you raised when I refreshed it and found that you'd already failed it without responding to the points I'd made on the review page. Could you not at least hold off until the end of today? And do you have any feedback on the comments that I made? Prioryman (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if there's been a misunderstanding. I did see your comments, but I didn't see a request for feedback. I did a fair amount of editing on the article myself. The article was put on hold on July 12, ten days ago, and it didn't seem like my problems with the article were being addressed at a very fast pace. What would you like me to do? (I don't think I can "unfail" an article, but I don't really know.) You can always renominate it, and if you address my issues, I'll pass it.
Do you have other suggestions for handling this situation? Can I "unfail" the article and put it back on hold? MathewTownsend (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Definitely a misunderstanding I'm afraid - I had been waiting on your reply. Sorry if the request for feedback was too implicit - I'll make sure to make it explicit next time!
You're right, it can't very well be unfailed, but let's proceed more or less as you suggested - I'll finish my changes, renominate it and notify you. By then it should be possible to pass or fail it pretty quickly. Prioryman (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
ok, notify me when. Sorry about all this. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
No worries, misunderstandings happen. I've completed the various changes (there were some things I needed to look up, so it took a bit longer than I'd anticipated) and renominated it - over to you. Prioryman (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
ok, but I may not complete the review instantly! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback newsletter

Hey all!

So, big news this week - on Tuesday, we ramped up to 5 percent of articles :). There's been a lot more feedback (pardon the pun) as I'm sure you've noticed, and to try and help we've scheduled a large number of office hours sessions, including one this evening at 22:00 UTC in the #wikimedia-office connect channel, and another at 01:00 UTC for the aussies amongst us :). I hope to see some of you there - if any of you can't make it but have any questions, I'm always happy to help.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Progress

I have dealt with my share of controversy on Wikipedia. For example should the women in lead of our article on pregnancy have clothing on or not, ADHD for which I was blocked briefly, and of course the Rorschach test which hit the front page of the NYTs[1] and for which I needed a lawyer for 8 months[2]. Sometimes I have given up and walked away. It takes time to bring more eyes to a topic. I however think we are all here to write the best encyclopedia we can. And we are making some progress at DID. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 00:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Note regarding opinion pieces

Regarding this edit, opinion pieces are allowed. They must be clearly attributed as the opinion of the author in order to make a novel statement, but that is a permissible inclusion based on a secondary source (for instance, note how Piper & Merskey are used, as well as Ross' rebuttal). In fact, given the lack of empirical evidence, much of the literature on DID is in fact opinion, and the page has considerably more attribution than most pages, particularly compared to articles on chemistry, physics or other hard sciences. You generally have to take a step back and ask "is this opinion worth including or is it undue weight", but simply being an opinion is not a reason to remove a source - that's my experience and understanding anyway.

In addition, such sources can be used for basic statements of fact, and can be valuable for such statements, though usually we are better off citing the source the opinion piece cites (or you can use an "...as cited in..." link).

I'm not absolutely convinced Gharaibeh must be included, even when I added it I thought it was a borderline source. But that's a conversation to have, particularly since we've now got several statements without citations. May I suggest either replacing the source for the paragraph starting with "Psychiatrist Numan Gharaibeh suggests...", or removing the paragraph? Either option is acceptable to me, but that unsourced paragraph isn't good practice. Ditto for the sentence "The DSM-V-TR criteria has also been criticized..." also sourced to Gharaibeh. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

well, it's badly written, POV and incorrect. It's like a tabloid article. Where does he get the figure of $20,000 per patient per psychiatrist? Considering insurance companies won't pay for treatment for DID (same as NHS in the UK won't pay), are there so many rich people in the world who can come up with that kind of money? And why would they if they weren't in some horrible distress? Therapy as fun? There's nothing in that article that needs to be cited in the DID article. It just gives an increased impression that the DID article is POV. Where is he talking about and where does he get his information? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
So you feel strongly about it then :)
Feel free to remove it, as I said, I considered it borderline even as I inserted it. It is useful to demonstrate that DID is still controversial, but that's amply demonstrated already. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I feel strongly about trash, whatever the subject. So you're confessing you knew better? And did it anyway? Bad on you! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's a matter of knowing better, it's not clear-cut whether including that source is appropriate or not. Since no other source made the points he did, I put it in. Meh, I could go either way - definitely not something worth edit warring over. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MathewTownsend. You have new messages at Talk:Torpedo...Los!.
Message added 02:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Wizardman's last comment: "I'd keep them removed from the count, since after reading over a few of the articles myself I was surprised just how heavily quoted the article was. As for the policy, it's an issue of paraphrasing. If that many sizable quotes are used in an article, then the article wasn't really written by Tony, but by the guy who said the quotes."
Is that statement by Wizardman what you mean? I'm glad its widely recognized as a problem finally.
p.s. There's also controversy over Brushstrokes series by the same editor. He has made independent articles for each in the series. Further, there are an unknown number of works in the series. e.g. see for example Talk:Brushstrokes series#Merger discussion. And other artist have "Brushstroke series" also. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


Picture in article Architecture

Architecture is a very tightly written article which makes no attempt to deal with the details of the History of architecture. It merely indicates the purposes of architecture, the changing attitudes towards the discipline of architecture and the role of the architect. If you look at the pictures in the article you will see that each historic section has only one pic. They are all very high quality. With the exception of the vernacular picture, (in itself a remarkable piece of vernacular architecture), all the others are very famous. Moreover, because of limited space, (and for the overall appearance of the article, which deals with aesthetics), every photo is horizontal format, and they were selected from thousands of possibilities in order to complement each other in terms of scale, angle etc.

Your pic was not necessary, was of low quality and didn't enhance the article.

While I realise you've been editing for a few months, I leave this. :

AJM's advice to new editors

  • Look at the article to see how it is laid out. The Table of Contents is the best place to start.
  • Read the article to see if what you want to add or remove is appropriate, necessary, or adds value.
  • Search for the right place to put it.
  • Check Use the "Show Preview" to make sure that what you have done is appropriate and correct.
  • Discuss any change about which you are uncertain, by placing your proposed text, or just a suggestion, on the talk page. Someone who watches the article will usually answer in a day or so. You can monitor this by clicking the watch tag at the top of the page.
  • Be aware
    • that an addition inserted between two sentences or paragraphs that are linked in meaning can turn the existent paragraphs into nonsense.
    • that a lengthy addition or the creation of a new sub-section can add inappropriate weight to just one aspect of a topic.

When adding images

  • Look to see if the subject of your image is already covered. Don't duplicate subject matter already present. Don't delete a picture just to put in your own, unless your picture is demonstrably better for the purpose. The caption and nearby text will help you decide this.
  • Search through the text to find the right place for your image. If you wish it to appear adjacent to a particular body of text, then place it above the text, not at the end of it.
  • Look to see how the pictures are formatted. If they are all small thumbnails, do not size your picture at 300 px. The pictures in the article may have been carefully selected to follow a certain visual style e.g. every picture may be horizontal, because of restricted space; every picture might be taken from a certain source, so they all match. Make sure your picture looks appropriate in the context of the article.
  • Read the captions of existent pictures, to see how yours should fit in.
  • Check the formatting, placement, context and caption before you leave the page by using the Show preview function, and again after saving.
  • Discuss If your picture seems to fill a real identifiable need in the article, but doesn't fit well, because of formatting or some other constraint, then put it on the talk page and discuss, before adding.
  • Be aware that adding a picture may substantially change the layout of the article. Your addition may push another picture out of its relevant section or cause some other formatting problem.
  • Edit before adding. Some pictures will look much better, or fit an article more appropriately if they are cropped to show the relevant subject.

Amandajm (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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 [1] 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:

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)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference merckdoc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MathewTownsend/Archive_5&oldid=1148817277"