This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
Please take a look at the newest edits/reversions at the Natalie Wood article. The same editor who added the "Final Months" section previously is readding it and edit warring over it. I've already reverted twice and don't want to violate 3RR. If it's added again, would you please revert it out? Thanks, Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your copyedit to Edward Sapir, I really appreciate it. But perhaps it would be better to wait a little, perhaps tomorrow? Since I am working actively on it right now, and two people working at the same time may cause annoying edit conflicts. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 21:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I really think you need to step back, take a breath, and allow things to happen without trying to force them to happen. There is no deadline in Wikipedia. Having the article as it is now hurts nothing and no one. If there was a serious BLP/liability concern, an administrator would have noticed it by now (what with all the RfC's you've filed and the discussion at the article talk page) and done something about it if there was a real problem. Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I've asked for assistance at the Wikiquette Assistance noticeboard for what I see as an increasing lack of civil behavior from you. You can find the report here. Lhb1239 ( talk) 02:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Did you know you are in danger of breaking the 3RR rule and are essentially edit warring at Ronald Reagan? Lhb1239 ( talk) 05:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. You have continued to make personal attacks against me in edit summaries and at noticeboards and on talk pages. The latest being here. Please stop. Lhb1239 ( talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Striking your comments was sufficient - and transparent to other editors reviewing the noticeboard. It's best to strike and then redo, but redoing on a noticeboard can be considered refactoring and might be seen as dishonest. And FYI: the personal attack I was referring to was your edit summary (that claimed I am harassing and following you) as well as your personal attacks yesterday in talk page statements along with edit summaries. Edit summaries are meant for brief summaries about why you have made edits, not commentary and certainly not for furthering disputes and making personal attacks. For more information, see WP:EDITSUMMARY.
The WQA was not a "report" but a request for assistance and advice from non-involved parties. If you really believe it's time for others to not make personal comments about you, it might be wiser to look at your own behavior first. None of "this" is about the Wood article. Your increasingly un-civil behavior toward me, however, is wearing quite thin. While you're looking at the article on edit summaries, you also might want to review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Lhb1239 ( talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Additionally, please familiarize yourself with policy regarding refactoring comments on talk pages - what is allowable and what is not. Striking through contentious content is preferred over deleting or refactoring, especially at a noticeboard. You can strikethrough what you would like to see removed and then rewrite what you would rather say. Lhb1239 ( talk) 19:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you are edit warring, close to breaking the 3RR rule, personally attacking other editors, putting inappropriate content on article talk pages, and refactoring comments. Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:Natalie Wood shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Please do not return the content removed from this talk page. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. See this link for more information. Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Mathew, seriously dude, you need to stop and think about what you are, and have been doing. Read the article links that have been provided for you, learn about procedure and policy, and stop doing things you very possibly will regret later. Editing Wikipedia is NOT about winning - it's about building an encyclopedia. Ask yourself if that's what you've been doing in the last 24 hours. Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The Natalie Wood talk page is not about you, it's not about your concerns, and it's not about what's going on at noticeboards around the Wiki. If you need to reference comments at other noticeboards, do it via placing a link to a diff, but not by copying and pasting large chunks of discussion from other talk pages on an article talk page. Article talk pages are about the article and its contents, that's all. You have cluttered up the article talk page to the point that if anyone wants to try and understand your concerns or anyone else's concerns about the article's content, they will never be able to wade through it all. Because you keep replacing the inappropriate content, I am now forced to take this elsewhere for administrator intervention. You've been warned already about your disruptive behavior today and yesterday, but you insist on exhibiting WP:IDHT. Enough is enough. Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Talk:Natalie Wood". Thank you. Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Because you have ignored previous warnings given today on your talk page, you have been reported for edit warring/violating 3RR at the Edit Warring Noticeboard. The report can be viewed here. Lhb1239 ( talk) 23:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at the newest edits/reversions at the Natalie Wood article. The same editor who added the "Final Months" section previously is readding it and edit warring over it. I've already reverted twice and don't want to violate 3RR. If it's added again, would you please revert it out? Thanks, Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your copyedit to Edward Sapir, I really appreciate it. But perhaps it would be better to wait a little, perhaps tomorrow? Since I am working actively on it right now, and two people working at the same time may cause annoying edit conflicts. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 21:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I really think you need to step back, take a breath, and allow things to happen without trying to force them to happen. There is no deadline in Wikipedia. Having the article as it is now hurts nothing and no one. If there was a serious BLP/liability concern, an administrator would have noticed it by now (what with all the RfC's you've filed and the discussion at the article talk page) and done something about it if there was a real problem. Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I've asked for assistance at the Wikiquette Assistance noticeboard for what I see as an increasing lack of civil behavior from you. You can find the report here. Lhb1239 ( talk) 02:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Did you know you are in danger of breaking the 3RR rule and are essentially edit warring at Ronald Reagan? Lhb1239 ( talk) 05:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. You have continued to make personal attacks against me in edit summaries and at noticeboards and on talk pages. The latest being here. Please stop. Lhb1239 ( talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Striking your comments was sufficient - and transparent to other editors reviewing the noticeboard. It's best to strike and then redo, but redoing on a noticeboard can be considered refactoring and might be seen as dishonest. And FYI: the personal attack I was referring to was your edit summary (that claimed I am harassing and following you) as well as your personal attacks yesterday in talk page statements along with edit summaries. Edit summaries are meant for brief summaries about why you have made edits, not commentary and certainly not for furthering disputes and making personal attacks. For more information, see WP:EDITSUMMARY.
The WQA was not a "report" but a request for assistance and advice from non-involved parties. If you really believe it's time for others to not make personal comments about you, it might be wiser to look at your own behavior first. None of "this" is about the Wood article. Your increasingly un-civil behavior toward me, however, is wearing quite thin. While you're looking at the article on edit summaries, you also might want to review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Lhb1239 ( talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Additionally, please familiarize yourself with policy regarding refactoring comments on talk pages - what is allowable and what is not. Striking through contentious content is preferred over deleting or refactoring, especially at a noticeboard. You can strikethrough what you would like to see removed and then rewrite what you would rather say. Lhb1239 ( talk) 19:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you are edit warring, close to breaking the 3RR rule, personally attacking other editors, putting inappropriate content on article talk pages, and refactoring comments. Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:Natalie Wood shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Please do not return the content removed from this talk page. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. See this link for more information. Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Mathew, seriously dude, you need to stop and think about what you are, and have been doing. Read the article links that have been provided for you, learn about procedure and policy, and stop doing things you very possibly will regret later. Editing Wikipedia is NOT about winning - it's about building an encyclopedia. Ask yourself if that's what you've been doing in the last 24 hours. Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The Natalie Wood talk page is not about you, it's not about your concerns, and it's not about what's going on at noticeboards around the Wiki. If you need to reference comments at other noticeboards, do it via placing a link to a diff, but not by copying and pasting large chunks of discussion from other talk pages on an article talk page. Article talk pages are about the article and its contents, that's all. You have cluttered up the article talk page to the point that if anyone wants to try and understand your concerns or anyone else's concerns about the article's content, they will never be able to wade through it all. Because you keep replacing the inappropriate content, I am now forced to take this elsewhere for administrator intervention. You've been warned already about your disruptive behavior today and yesterday, but you insist on exhibiting WP:IDHT. Enough is enough. Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Talk:Natalie Wood". Thank you. Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I have just activated some editing preferences, one of which allows editing using right click. My touchpad is very sensitive and seems to have caused me to save an edit to that page which inadvertently removed your content. I am very sorry to have mucked around like that and will be disabling the edit feature. Regards. Leaky Caldron 23:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Because you have ignored previous warnings given today on your talk page, you have been reported for edit warring/violating 3RR at the Edit Warring Noticeboard. The report can be viewed here. Lhb1239 ( talk) 23:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The best way to deal with Lhb1239's warnings and the like is to ignore them. When an editor's complaints e.g. WP:WQA and the 3RR aren't getting traction -- e.g. AussieLegend's reply -- it's reasonable to assume the larger Wikipedia community does not share their concerns and they may safely be ignored -- in fact, it's often preferable. Note also that per WP:OWNTALK you can simply remove their comments from here if you'd like, although copying to an archive page is better, if you wish to take the time to do that. Lhb1239 is correct in the general idea that article talk pages should be limited to discussion of the article and that WP:DIFFs are the preferred way to reference a discussion or post elsewhere on Wikipedia. Gerardw ( talk) 20:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Natalie Wood shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Lhb1239 ( talk) 02:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:Natalie Wood shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.
As stated in the edit summary each time your talk page entry has been removed, what you have placed there violates WP:TPG. Please edit it soon in order for it to meet the TPGs. If you do not comply, I will be forced to take this elsewhere. You have already violated 3RR tonight several times over, seriously - do you want to skate this close to the edge? Lhb1239 ( talk) 05:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In Mao Zedong, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Sino-Japanese War ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't break up another editors's comments like you did here [13]. It's okay to reply between different editors comments, but not in the middle of a single editor's edits. Gerardw ( talk) 23:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
At the Natalie Wood talk page I asked for some proof of the things you've said there:
Prior to the above, at the BLP Noticeboard earlier today I asked for some proof after you accused me of reverting your comments there:
In the past you've been so quick at responding to queries directed toward you. This time I'm confused by your lack of response. Looking forward to hearing back from you on all this.
Lhb1239 ( talk) 02:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
You started out by reverting an edit I made to the page without reading the diff [19]. I pointed out to you on your talk page that I was merely removing repeated wording. You subsequently returned my wording to the page. [20]
Next you asked me to revert content on Natalie Wood on your behalf as you had already reverted twice and didn't want to violate 3-RR. [21]
Then you notified me to revert the page again. [22]
You have posted on my talk page 35 times in the last few days regarding Natalie Wood [23]
You reported me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring [24] where your complaint was closed with no action, and you reported me to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where your complaint was also unfounded [25]. You also reported me to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance [26] where you were told that you were exhibiting ownership of the Natalie Wood page. Please stop posting on this page. MathewTownsend ( talk) 14:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea for you to take a break from the Natalia Wood article and any interaction with use Lhb1239 for awhile. I have asked him to do the same. This could turn in to a rather unpleasant dispute, if you do not both take a step back at this point. Your statement above is valid and warranted, and I hope he heeds it. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 15:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Great that you've gone to work on Kroeber. That article also needs attention - if you need sources send me an email. I have resurces that you might use. Best. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I appreciate the help with the article. When I first wrote it, I had never heard of John colt previously, I was actually reading a book about his brother, Samuel Colt in hope of improving that article and read about the murder in a half a sentence. I googled him and found all this source material. I guess when I write, I take things for granted on what people know because of the source material. Thanks for helping fill in a few gaps and such...I have had it up at GA since September or October and it is currently under review. Your edits have been extremely helpful. Thanks again.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This edit was likely not vandalism, just poorly worded trivia. Please be more careful when you revert edits by editors and label them vandalism - doing so can scare away new editors who have the capability of making helpful and productive contributions in the future. For more information on what is and isn't considered vandalism, please read WP:VANDAL. Lhb1239 ( talk) 06:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The China Star | ||
I, Ferox Seneca, do hereby award you, Mathew Townsend, with this China Star for your role in improving the article " Sanzo Nosaka". Your suggestions and involvement were instrumental in raising the article to Good Article status. | ||
this WikiAward was given to MathewTownsend by Ferox Seneca ( talk) on 05:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |
Wow, wow, wow! Thanks! MathewTownsend ( talk) 12:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Added explanation to User:Nobody_Ent. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Ronald Reagan. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't flatter yourself, dearie. Ronald Reagan has been on my watchlist for months now. And yes, your behavior did say "edit warring" (hence, the proper and appropriate placement of the warning template). Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Get a life! MathewTownsend ( talk) 22:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
LOL! You're keeping a growing list of links to diffs where I'm involved handy and at the ready but I'm the one who's fixated? You're cracking me up, Mattie. :-D
Hello, MathewTownsend. Will you weigh in on the above linked discussion since it concerns a change made by you? Flyer22 ( talk) 23:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know - I'm online most of today and I think we could finish any remaining concerns you have about the SDG article - lede has been expanded and I think I've responded to the rest of the review comments but not entirely sure... Failedwizard ( talk) 13:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I've replied at the GA nomination. Sorry it took so long; I had to go out for a bit. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 03:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey - thank you for your review. You went to a lot of effort, and went well above the call of duty. It was great to work with someone of that level of enthusiasm and nice that you were online so much and we could get through the review quickly. Very happy with the outcome and I hope you keep reviewing :) Failedwizard ( talk) 19:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks! It was a pleasure to work with you and I learned about a fascinating area I knew nothing about. MathewTownsend ( talk) 19:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review of The Number Devil! My last good article nomination took nearly two months to get reviewed. I will address the issues as soon as possible. Thanks again.-- Architeuthidae ( Talk | Contributions) 02:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments. Let me know if there's anything else you need. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I won't have time for Wikipedia today and perhaps not tomorrow either so I'll have to check through your changes when I get time. Theleftorium (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, you really helped me make that a better article!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for nitpicking Hotel Polen fire! :) SpeakFree (talk)( contribs) 02:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your GA reviews. In case you didn't realise there are several paramters of the GA template which should be completed as:
{{GA|date=24 December 2011 (UTC)|topic=History|page=1|oldid=467431353}}
The timestamp is added by using five tildes as ~~~~~ Topic is the main topic, not the subtopic, page is the page number of the review, e.g GA1 wiuld be 1; oldidid is the revision id of the article when the review was completed, similar for the FailedGA template. This all helps the bots upsdate the article history. Jezhotwells ( talk) 11:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This user has made about 25 edits to Wikipedia which over 5 of them are GANs [34]. It is a little silly and I will close the two I am doing after a couple of days. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you Mathew! CarlosBergaz ( talk) 12:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you!
MathewTownsend (
talk) 15:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Speech_generating_device#Some_concerns_about_this_article.
By all means comment - this is the other editor who I mentioned as being someone I'd want to consult before making any drastic changes - so now might be a good time to re-raise any issues you had at the time and we can work together as a three. Also there is some mention of taking the article back to GA for reassessment. Failedwizard ( talk) 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for such a timely and concise review. I believe that I have addressed the comments you made. — KV5 • Talk • 20:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your review of the Kenny Roberts article. I appreciate your time and efforts. Yes, the Motorsport Section was the proper place to list the article. Orsoni ( talk) 04:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review of Turning Point (2007). I went through the article and fixed all the concerns you had. I also performed a copyedit on the article for anything that seemed long winding or confusing.-- Will C 22:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey there MathewTownsend, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:MathewTownsend/Sandbox.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your review of the Pepper Martin article. Regarding the naming of one section of the article as the Gashouse gang, I can see how it may be straying from the subject at hand. I am open to other suggestions. Orsoni ( talk) 14:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi MathewTownsend, I am not currently taking on any additional adoptees at the moment, as I don't have sufficient time to invest. However, I'm certainly available for questions, in case you have any specific things you want to know. Also, I may have time early next year, I'll keep you posted. You might want to have a look at WP:ADOPT for other adopters. WormTT · ( talk) 09:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi MathewTownsend. Sorry for the delay, but I've set things up for you. Have a look at User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/MathewTownsend and let me know if you've got any questions WormTT · ( talk) 12:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I responded on the review page! :) Theleftorium (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the copy edit at common cold. Thankfully medical exams are multiple choice :-) -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
For your outstanding efforts to reduce the GA backlog with a series of fine reviews. Keep up the great work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you so much. I feel rewarded! Best wishes,
MathewTownsend (
talk) 18:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, sir! -- Boycool ( talk) 02:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead, I'm finished. I was working on a related article about a Church his widow had dedicated to him in 1867 and it has its own article but wasn't mentioned in his. It's in the National Historic Register so I added a brief bit on it in the article. I'm done now, though! Thanks!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The GA Helping Hand Barnstar | ||
Thank you for the article Noel F. Parrish that you reviewed and helped to improve. Thank you for your work here. Ched would like to award you the GA Editing Barnstar. |
I like the idea of alternate universes!
Oh really? ... you wouldn't happen to be a Stargate fan would you? — Ched : ? 14:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, good point. Perhaps I need to draw that out better! At that point in time, guns for the most part were made individually. A gunsmith would take a piece of wood and cut a blank for the stock from it, make or purchase a barrel, make the lock, make or procure small parts, assemble, fit and final finish the gun. As you could imagine making guns like this would be very time consuming. Colt wanted to invest in machines to make all these small parts, but the idea in manufacturing was so new that the investors didn't have faith in it working; plus the economy was in severe decline at the time. Colt was the president, but the board had to reign him in at times. These were men of means and while they were sold on his idea he was only 22 or 23 at the time. He was regarded by most of the board as a spendthrift and would think nothing of spending $100's (probably thousands in today's money) lavishly entertaining/bribing government officials for potential sales. He was known for getting people intoxicated during his sales pitches. In 1843 the company was basically sold out from under him by the board and the machinery auctioned off.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for reviewing and passing " Just a Kiss". Happy New Year! Novice7 ( talk) 12:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I know we didn't always see eye to eye but I greatly appreciated your efforts which definitely improved the article. That is the goal of Wikipedia, after all. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC) |
I'm most appreciative of this from you. Thank you! MathewTownsend ( talk) 19:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Mathew, just to let you know that sastra wangi will be on the main page on 2 or 3 January... as the lead DYK hook. Awesome! Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
An article that you recently passed at GAN has been flagged at DYK as containing potential close paraphrasing. Can you describe your process of reviewing for this type of issue in GANs? Did you do so in this case? Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
So the nominator with me and Maith would like 2nd opinion for the article. ~~ Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
So far I didn't look at Good Articles, but saw this grow from stub to something I like a lot. What do you think of a GA nomination, you saw several? If yes, should I propose it, or rather the author(s)? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Canterbury thanks... | |
Long deceased Archbishops of Canterbury thank you for helping with two more steps along the way to eventually having all of the pre-1300 articles on them at GA or FA status. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
Oh my god! How many of them are there? Thanks for the thanks! MathewTownsend ( talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I became kind of frustrated during the review! Unfortunately that happens to me occasionally, when I get stressed (IRL and online). I probably should have been a bit more polite. But thanks a lot for the review and the copyedits! Happy new years! Theleftorium (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mathew,
Did the problem with my edit to Common cold ( [36]) concern the actual change in wording, or did it somehow mess up the formatting or presentation of the page? If the latter, it might have been a temporary glitch, as the servers have been under strain over the last few hours. Sometimes purging a page can fix such glitches.
Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 01:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The article High Five Interchange you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:High Five Interchange for things which need to be addressed. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 02:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll look at it for you. I think they might use something like Grammarly. Check with Nikkimaria or Orlady, maybe Moonriddengirl. I have run into it a few times, once with William F. Moran the other with Buster Warenski. I got hit on Warenski [37] at DYK because I listed the materials he used in his $200K art knives and there's only so many ways you can say "ounces of gold, number and carat of jewels, etc". Moran was similar, but they actually deleted the old one and made me start over, because I had not added any sources yet. (I tend to write first and add sources later). With the proliferation of thumbnail sketches about famous people on the web, and our requirement of "summary style" a lot of what could be called "Close paraphrasing" really isn't. There's only so many ways you can say something about a person. I use this to check [38], this is good if you want to check against a source on a webpage [39], but if the article is more than a month old it's almost worthless because it picks up wiki and all the mirror sites.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
On 2 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sastra wangi, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Ayu Utami's (pictured) 1998 novel Saman launched an Indonesian literary movement focusing on women's views of sexuality? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sastra wangi.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 23:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I'm happy with the edits you've made, and thanks for the review. Miyagawa (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi
I have added some comments on the Speech generating device talk page. I would appreciate your input. Chaosdruid ( talk) 02:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for the number of great GA reviews you've done lately, with precision and thoughtfulness. I hope we will continue to see you around GAN for some time to come. Dana boomer ( talk) 20:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks! A pleasure!
You're welcome, keep up the good work! I've noticed you're interested in road-related articles, you may want to check out WP:USRD. Dough 48 72 00:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the review, very much so. I have handled all issues at the subpage.-- Will C 22:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for passing and reviewing this article.-- Will C 23:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited George Went Hensley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church of God ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for reviewing and helping to improve Paiyaa! Uncomplicated and very fast, great! Johannes003 ( talk) 19:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Couple of suggestions:
I noticed you during a SPI I was compiling, and even quoted one of your diffs (sorry - I misspelled your name there). I wanted to let you know that the #2 contributor to your talk page was in fact a banned editor (not blocked, but banned) who had slipped under the radar for too long and got too comfortable. The case is now closed, but see this for further information. Cheers, and good luck :> Doc talk 05:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't get any help so I ignored his postings on my page and stopped reverting vandals on Ronald Reagan, in fact stopped all editing except reviewing GAs. It didn't occur to me he was a sockpuppet. But he was definitely out to get me. So I'm glad he was stopped. But won't he return again? What should I do in the future? Thanks! MathewTownsend ( talk) 22:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Many thanks for your review of Motul de San José - you didn't really give me a hard time, just a well-needed fresh eye! Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 10:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
Responded. Cheers, Res Mar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for passing the article and all the edits you made were perfectly fine, improved it very much. Certainly the fraction addition, I had no idea it was even possible to do that.-- Will C 22:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article. Unfortunately, I was unable to do much in response to many of your comments due to the limited sources available. If you can suggest sources that I have overlooked, I will be glad to include that material. Savidan 03:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mathew. Sorry it's been so long on the questions. I've loaded you up, so you've got some to do. I'm actually going to be stepping away from WP for a bit, so take your time - I'll check your answers when I get back. Shouldn't be more than a week or so. Hope all's well with you. WormTT · ( talk) 06:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your review for the MTV Unplugged album, I already fixed all the issues. Would you be kind enough to check them out? Jaespinoza ( talk) 02:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi MathewTownsend,
thanks a lot for reviewing the article on Bobby Driscoll so fast. Your browser is fine, the broken links are just because the references, linked in the article, once had been scanned and put on a website on Bobby Driscoll, which I ran from 2007- ca. mid-2009. But basically due to tightened and stricter copyright laws in Germany (I am from Germany), back then, I deleted the entire website. But the sources are still reliable (mainstream press etc.) - please read the comment (and my reply) under paragraph "references". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bobby_Driscoll Most of the original press-material I took from the newspaper-archive of anchestry.com. Now there are two options: either you suspend reviewing the aricle, giving me the time to re-upload the material on a neutral (and unlisted) website, in order to re-create the references/sources, or I temporarily withdraw the GA-assessment, with the same purpose. Frankly, I didn't expect the review this fast, since I read in the rules, that it can take some weeks until someone would find the time. But it would be very nice, anyway, if you could tell me your opinion, so I can concurrently revise the points in question. I guess, I was a bit too fast with my request for assessing the article. I'm really sorry for this inconvenience. regards -- Bylot ( talk) 14:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw that you edited the article on Bobby Driscoll. I created a backup copy of the article on my user-page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bylot/Bobby_Driscoll to freely work on the text without changing the actual article too often. When I'm finished I then just want to replace it entirely. I added some reduced Fair-Use images of Driscoll's most important movies and hope that there will be no problems with them. Best regards-- Bylot ( talk) 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Your changes were mostly fine. I made two nits. Savidan 06:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited St. Elizabeths Hospital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Justice ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I found it entertaining. The only doubt I find is that if names like the Fourth Hokage's and the Fox's whose names are revealed after their mention in the article should be added. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 02:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Mathew, thanks for your work on this week's Featured content. I wonder whether you're interested in contributing on a regular basis. Crisco is now the major editor (I did it for a year and a half, and I'm very glad to take a back seat). Tony (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
Please take a look at the newest edits/reversions at the Natalie Wood article. The same editor who added the "Final Months" section previously is readding it and edit warring over it. I've already reverted twice and don't want to violate 3RR. If it's added again, would you please revert it out? Thanks, Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your copyedit to Edward Sapir, I really appreciate it. But perhaps it would be better to wait a little, perhaps tomorrow? Since I am working actively on it right now, and two people working at the same time may cause annoying edit conflicts. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 21:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I really think you need to step back, take a breath, and allow things to happen without trying to force them to happen. There is no deadline in Wikipedia. Having the article as it is now hurts nothing and no one. If there was a serious BLP/liability concern, an administrator would have noticed it by now (what with all the RfC's you've filed and the discussion at the article talk page) and done something about it if there was a real problem. Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I've asked for assistance at the Wikiquette Assistance noticeboard for what I see as an increasing lack of civil behavior from you. You can find the report here. Lhb1239 ( talk) 02:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Did you know you are in danger of breaking the 3RR rule and are essentially edit warring at Ronald Reagan? Lhb1239 ( talk) 05:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. You have continued to make personal attacks against me in edit summaries and at noticeboards and on talk pages. The latest being here. Please stop. Lhb1239 ( talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Striking your comments was sufficient - and transparent to other editors reviewing the noticeboard. It's best to strike and then redo, but redoing on a noticeboard can be considered refactoring and might be seen as dishonest. And FYI: the personal attack I was referring to was your edit summary (that claimed I am harassing and following you) as well as your personal attacks yesterday in talk page statements along with edit summaries. Edit summaries are meant for brief summaries about why you have made edits, not commentary and certainly not for furthering disputes and making personal attacks. For more information, see WP:EDITSUMMARY.
The WQA was not a "report" but a request for assistance and advice from non-involved parties. If you really believe it's time for others to not make personal comments about you, it might be wiser to look at your own behavior first. None of "this" is about the Wood article. Your increasingly un-civil behavior toward me, however, is wearing quite thin. While you're looking at the article on edit summaries, you also might want to review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Lhb1239 ( talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Additionally, please familiarize yourself with policy regarding refactoring comments on talk pages - what is allowable and what is not. Striking through contentious content is preferred over deleting or refactoring, especially at a noticeboard. You can strikethrough what you would like to see removed and then rewrite what you would rather say. Lhb1239 ( talk) 19:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you are edit warring, close to breaking the 3RR rule, personally attacking other editors, putting inappropriate content on article talk pages, and refactoring comments. Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:Natalie Wood shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Please do not return the content removed from this talk page. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. See this link for more information. Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Mathew, seriously dude, you need to stop and think about what you are, and have been doing. Read the article links that have been provided for you, learn about procedure and policy, and stop doing things you very possibly will regret later. Editing Wikipedia is NOT about winning - it's about building an encyclopedia. Ask yourself if that's what you've been doing in the last 24 hours. Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The Natalie Wood talk page is not about you, it's not about your concerns, and it's not about what's going on at noticeboards around the Wiki. If you need to reference comments at other noticeboards, do it via placing a link to a diff, but not by copying and pasting large chunks of discussion from other talk pages on an article talk page. Article talk pages are about the article and its contents, that's all. You have cluttered up the article talk page to the point that if anyone wants to try and understand your concerns or anyone else's concerns about the article's content, they will never be able to wade through it all. Because you keep replacing the inappropriate content, I am now forced to take this elsewhere for administrator intervention. You've been warned already about your disruptive behavior today and yesterday, but you insist on exhibiting WP:IDHT. Enough is enough. Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Talk:Natalie Wood". Thank you. Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Because you have ignored previous warnings given today on your talk page, you have been reported for edit warring/violating 3RR at the Edit Warring Noticeboard. The report can be viewed here. Lhb1239 ( talk) 23:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at the newest edits/reversions at the Natalie Wood article. The same editor who added the "Final Months" section previously is readding it and edit warring over it. I've already reverted twice and don't want to violate 3RR. If it's added again, would you please revert it out? Thanks, Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your copyedit to Edward Sapir, I really appreciate it. But perhaps it would be better to wait a little, perhaps tomorrow? Since I am working actively on it right now, and two people working at the same time may cause annoying edit conflicts. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 21:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I really think you need to step back, take a breath, and allow things to happen without trying to force them to happen. There is no deadline in Wikipedia. Having the article as it is now hurts nothing and no one. If there was a serious BLP/liability concern, an administrator would have noticed it by now (what with all the RfC's you've filed and the discussion at the article talk page) and done something about it if there was a real problem. Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I've asked for assistance at the Wikiquette Assistance noticeboard for what I see as an increasing lack of civil behavior from you. You can find the report here. Lhb1239 ( talk) 02:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Did you know you are in danger of breaking the 3RR rule and are essentially edit warring at Ronald Reagan? Lhb1239 ( talk) 05:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. You have continued to make personal attacks against me in edit summaries and at noticeboards and on talk pages. The latest being here. Please stop. Lhb1239 ( talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Striking your comments was sufficient - and transparent to other editors reviewing the noticeboard. It's best to strike and then redo, but redoing on a noticeboard can be considered refactoring and might be seen as dishonest. And FYI: the personal attack I was referring to was your edit summary (that claimed I am harassing and following you) as well as your personal attacks yesterday in talk page statements along with edit summaries. Edit summaries are meant for brief summaries about why you have made edits, not commentary and certainly not for furthering disputes and making personal attacks. For more information, see WP:EDITSUMMARY.
The WQA was not a "report" but a request for assistance and advice from non-involved parties. If you really believe it's time for others to not make personal comments about you, it might be wiser to look at your own behavior first. None of "this" is about the Wood article. Your increasingly un-civil behavior toward me, however, is wearing quite thin. While you're looking at the article on edit summaries, you also might want to review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Lhb1239 ( talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Additionally, please familiarize yourself with policy regarding refactoring comments on talk pages - what is allowable and what is not. Striking through contentious content is preferred over deleting or refactoring, especially at a noticeboard. You can strikethrough what you would like to see removed and then rewrite what you would rather say. Lhb1239 ( talk) 19:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you are edit warring, close to breaking the 3RR rule, personally attacking other editors, putting inappropriate content on article talk pages, and refactoring comments. Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:Natalie Wood shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Please do not return the content removed from this talk page. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. See this link for more information. Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Mathew, seriously dude, you need to stop and think about what you are, and have been doing. Read the article links that have been provided for you, learn about procedure and policy, and stop doing things you very possibly will regret later. Editing Wikipedia is NOT about winning - it's about building an encyclopedia. Ask yourself if that's what you've been doing in the last 24 hours. Lhb1239 ( talk) 20:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The Natalie Wood talk page is not about you, it's not about your concerns, and it's not about what's going on at noticeboards around the Wiki. If you need to reference comments at other noticeboards, do it via placing a link to a diff, but not by copying and pasting large chunks of discussion from other talk pages on an article talk page. Article talk pages are about the article and its contents, that's all. You have cluttered up the article talk page to the point that if anyone wants to try and understand your concerns or anyone else's concerns about the article's content, they will never be able to wade through it all. Because you keep replacing the inappropriate content, I am now forced to take this elsewhere for administrator intervention. You've been warned already about your disruptive behavior today and yesterday, but you insist on exhibiting WP:IDHT. Enough is enough. Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Talk:Natalie Wood". Thank you. Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I have just activated some editing preferences, one of which allows editing using right click. My touchpad is very sensitive and seems to have caused me to save an edit to that page which inadvertently removed your content. I am very sorry to have mucked around like that and will be disabling the edit feature. Regards. Leaky Caldron 23:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Because you have ignored previous warnings given today on your talk page, you have been reported for edit warring/violating 3RR at the Edit Warring Noticeboard. The report can be viewed here. Lhb1239 ( talk) 23:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The best way to deal with Lhb1239's warnings and the like is to ignore them. When an editor's complaints e.g. WP:WQA and the 3RR aren't getting traction -- e.g. AussieLegend's reply -- it's reasonable to assume the larger Wikipedia community does not share their concerns and they may safely be ignored -- in fact, it's often preferable. Note also that per WP:OWNTALK you can simply remove their comments from here if you'd like, although copying to an archive page is better, if you wish to take the time to do that. Lhb1239 is correct in the general idea that article talk pages should be limited to discussion of the article and that WP:DIFFs are the preferred way to reference a discussion or post elsewhere on Wikipedia. Gerardw ( talk) 20:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Natalie Wood shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Lhb1239 ( talk) 02:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:Natalie Wood shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.
As stated in the edit summary each time your talk page entry has been removed, what you have placed there violates WP:TPG. Please edit it soon in order for it to meet the TPGs. If you do not comply, I will be forced to take this elsewhere. You have already violated 3RR tonight several times over, seriously - do you want to skate this close to the edge? Lhb1239 ( talk) 05:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In Mao Zedong, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Sino-Japanese War ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't break up another editors's comments like you did here [13]. It's okay to reply between different editors comments, but not in the middle of a single editor's edits. Gerardw ( talk) 23:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
At the Natalie Wood talk page I asked for some proof of the things you've said there:
Prior to the above, at the BLP Noticeboard earlier today I asked for some proof after you accused me of reverting your comments there:
In the past you've been so quick at responding to queries directed toward you. This time I'm confused by your lack of response. Looking forward to hearing back from you on all this.
Lhb1239 ( talk) 02:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
You started out by reverting an edit I made to the page without reading the diff [19]. I pointed out to you on your talk page that I was merely removing repeated wording. You subsequently returned my wording to the page. [20]
Next you asked me to revert content on Natalie Wood on your behalf as you had already reverted twice and didn't want to violate 3-RR. [21]
Then you notified me to revert the page again. [22]
You have posted on my talk page 35 times in the last few days regarding Natalie Wood [23]
You reported me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring [24] where your complaint was closed with no action, and you reported me to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where your complaint was also unfounded [25]. You also reported me to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance [26] where you were told that you were exhibiting ownership of the Natalie Wood page. Please stop posting on this page. MathewTownsend ( talk) 14:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea for you to take a break from the Natalia Wood article and any interaction with use Lhb1239 for awhile. I have asked him to do the same. This could turn in to a rather unpleasant dispute, if you do not both take a step back at this point. Your statement above is valid and warranted, and I hope he heeds it. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 15:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Great that you've gone to work on Kroeber. That article also needs attention - if you need sources send me an email. I have resurces that you might use. Best. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I appreciate the help with the article. When I first wrote it, I had never heard of John colt previously, I was actually reading a book about his brother, Samuel Colt in hope of improving that article and read about the murder in a half a sentence. I googled him and found all this source material. I guess when I write, I take things for granted on what people know because of the source material. Thanks for helping fill in a few gaps and such...I have had it up at GA since September or October and it is currently under review. Your edits have been extremely helpful. Thanks again.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This edit was likely not vandalism, just poorly worded trivia. Please be more careful when you revert edits by editors and label them vandalism - doing so can scare away new editors who have the capability of making helpful and productive contributions in the future. For more information on what is and isn't considered vandalism, please read WP:VANDAL. Lhb1239 ( talk) 06:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The China Star | ||
I, Ferox Seneca, do hereby award you, Mathew Townsend, with this China Star for your role in improving the article " Sanzo Nosaka". Your suggestions and involvement were instrumental in raising the article to Good Article status. | ||
this WikiAward was given to MathewTownsend by Ferox Seneca ( talk) on 05:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |
Wow, wow, wow! Thanks! MathewTownsend ( talk) 12:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Added explanation to User:Nobody_Ent. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Ronald Reagan. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't flatter yourself, dearie. Ronald Reagan has been on my watchlist for months now. And yes, your behavior did say "edit warring" (hence, the proper and appropriate placement of the warning template). Lhb1239 ( talk) 22:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Get a life! MathewTownsend ( talk) 22:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
LOL! You're keeping a growing list of links to diffs where I'm involved handy and at the ready but I'm the one who's fixated? You're cracking me up, Mattie. :-D
Hello, MathewTownsend. Will you weigh in on the above linked discussion since it concerns a change made by you? Flyer22 ( talk) 23:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know - I'm online most of today and I think we could finish any remaining concerns you have about the SDG article - lede has been expanded and I think I've responded to the rest of the review comments but not entirely sure... Failedwizard ( talk) 13:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I've replied at the GA nomination. Sorry it took so long; I had to go out for a bit. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 03:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey - thank you for your review. You went to a lot of effort, and went well above the call of duty. It was great to work with someone of that level of enthusiasm and nice that you were online so much and we could get through the review quickly. Very happy with the outcome and I hope you keep reviewing :) Failedwizard ( talk) 19:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks! It was a pleasure to work with you and I learned about a fascinating area I knew nothing about. MathewTownsend ( talk) 19:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review of The Number Devil! My last good article nomination took nearly two months to get reviewed. I will address the issues as soon as possible. Thanks again.-- Architeuthidae ( Talk | Contributions) 02:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments. Let me know if there's anything else you need. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I won't have time for Wikipedia today and perhaps not tomorrow either so I'll have to check through your changes when I get time. Theleftorium (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, you really helped me make that a better article!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for nitpicking Hotel Polen fire! :) SpeakFree (talk)( contribs) 02:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your GA reviews. In case you didn't realise there are several paramters of the GA template which should be completed as:
{{GA|date=24 December 2011 (UTC)|topic=History|page=1|oldid=467431353}}
The timestamp is added by using five tildes as ~~~~~ Topic is the main topic, not the subtopic, page is the page number of the review, e.g GA1 wiuld be 1; oldidid is the revision id of the article when the review was completed, similar for the FailedGA template. This all helps the bots upsdate the article history. Jezhotwells ( talk) 11:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This user has made about 25 edits to Wikipedia which over 5 of them are GANs [34]. It is a little silly and I will close the two I am doing after a couple of days. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you Mathew! CarlosBergaz ( talk) 12:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you!
MathewTownsend (
talk) 15:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Speech_generating_device#Some_concerns_about_this_article.
By all means comment - this is the other editor who I mentioned as being someone I'd want to consult before making any drastic changes - so now might be a good time to re-raise any issues you had at the time and we can work together as a three. Also there is some mention of taking the article back to GA for reassessment. Failedwizard ( talk) 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for such a timely and concise review. I believe that I have addressed the comments you made. — KV5 • Talk • 20:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your review of the Kenny Roberts article. I appreciate your time and efforts. Yes, the Motorsport Section was the proper place to list the article. Orsoni ( talk) 04:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review of Turning Point (2007). I went through the article and fixed all the concerns you had. I also performed a copyedit on the article for anything that seemed long winding or confusing.-- Will C 22:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey there MathewTownsend, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:MathewTownsend/Sandbox.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your review of the Pepper Martin article. Regarding the naming of one section of the article as the Gashouse gang, I can see how it may be straying from the subject at hand. I am open to other suggestions. Orsoni ( talk) 14:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi MathewTownsend, I am not currently taking on any additional adoptees at the moment, as I don't have sufficient time to invest. However, I'm certainly available for questions, in case you have any specific things you want to know. Also, I may have time early next year, I'll keep you posted. You might want to have a look at WP:ADOPT for other adopters. WormTT · ( talk) 09:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi MathewTownsend. Sorry for the delay, but I've set things up for you. Have a look at User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/MathewTownsend and let me know if you've got any questions WormTT · ( talk) 12:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I responded on the review page! :) Theleftorium (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the copy edit at common cold. Thankfully medical exams are multiple choice :-) -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
For your outstanding efforts to reduce the GA backlog with a series of fine reviews. Keep up the great work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you so much. I feel rewarded! Best wishes,
MathewTownsend (
talk) 18:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, sir! -- Boycool ( talk) 02:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead, I'm finished. I was working on a related article about a Church his widow had dedicated to him in 1867 and it has its own article but wasn't mentioned in his. It's in the National Historic Register so I added a brief bit on it in the article. I'm done now, though! Thanks!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The GA Helping Hand Barnstar | ||
Thank you for the article Noel F. Parrish that you reviewed and helped to improve. Thank you for your work here. Ched would like to award you the GA Editing Barnstar. |
I like the idea of alternate universes!
Oh really? ... you wouldn't happen to be a Stargate fan would you? — Ched : ? 14:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, good point. Perhaps I need to draw that out better! At that point in time, guns for the most part were made individually. A gunsmith would take a piece of wood and cut a blank for the stock from it, make or purchase a barrel, make the lock, make or procure small parts, assemble, fit and final finish the gun. As you could imagine making guns like this would be very time consuming. Colt wanted to invest in machines to make all these small parts, but the idea in manufacturing was so new that the investors didn't have faith in it working; plus the economy was in severe decline at the time. Colt was the president, but the board had to reign him in at times. These were men of means and while they were sold on his idea he was only 22 or 23 at the time. He was regarded by most of the board as a spendthrift and would think nothing of spending $100's (probably thousands in today's money) lavishly entertaining/bribing government officials for potential sales. He was known for getting people intoxicated during his sales pitches. In 1843 the company was basically sold out from under him by the board and the machinery auctioned off.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for reviewing and passing " Just a Kiss". Happy New Year! Novice7 ( talk) 12:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I know we didn't always see eye to eye but I greatly appreciated your efforts which definitely improved the article. That is the goal of Wikipedia, after all. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC) |
I'm most appreciative of this from you. Thank you! MathewTownsend ( talk) 19:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Mathew, just to let you know that sastra wangi will be on the main page on 2 or 3 January... as the lead DYK hook. Awesome! Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
An article that you recently passed at GAN has been flagged at DYK as containing potential close paraphrasing. Can you describe your process of reviewing for this type of issue in GANs? Did you do so in this case? Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
So the nominator with me and Maith would like 2nd opinion for the article. ~~ Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
So far I didn't look at Good Articles, but saw this grow from stub to something I like a lot. What do you think of a GA nomination, you saw several? If yes, should I propose it, or rather the author(s)? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Canterbury thanks... | |
Long deceased Archbishops of Canterbury thank you for helping with two more steps along the way to eventually having all of the pre-1300 articles on them at GA or FA status. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
Oh my god! How many of them are there? Thanks for the thanks! MathewTownsend ( talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I became kind of frustrated during the review! Unfortunately that happens to me occasionally, when I get stressed (IRL and online). I probably should have been a bit more polite. But thanks a lot for the review and the copyedits! Happy new years! Theleftorium (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mathew,
Did the problem with my edit to Common cold ( [36]) concern the actual change in wording, or did it somehow mess up the formatting or presentation of the page? If the latter, it might have been a temporary glitch, as the servers have been under strain over the last few hours. Sometimes purging a page can fix such glitches.
Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 01:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The article High Five Interchange you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:High Five Interchange for things which need to be addressed. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 02:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll look at it for you. I think they might use something like Grammarly. Check with Nikkimaria or Orlady, maybe Moonriddengirl. I have run into it a few times, once with William F. Moran the other with Buster Warenski. I got hit on Warenski [37] at DYK because I listed the materials he used in his $200K art knives and there's only so many ways you can say "ounces of gold, number and carat of jewels, etc". Moran was similar, but they actually deleted the old one and made me start over, because I had not added any sources yet. (I tend to write first and add sources later). With the proliferation of thumbnail sketches about famous people on the web, and our requirement of "summary style" a lot of what could be called "Close paraphrasing" really isn't. There's only so many ways you can say something about a person. I use this to check [38], this is good if you want to check against a source on a webpage [39], but if the article is more than a month old it's almost worthless because it picks up wiki and all the mirror sites.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
On 2 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sastra wangi, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Ayu Utami's (pictured) 1998 novel Saman launched an Indonesian literary movement focusing on women's views of sexuality? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sastra wangi.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 23:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I'm happy with the edits you've made, and thanks for the review. Miyagawa (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi
I have added some comments on the Speech generating device talk page. I would appreciate your input. Chaosdruid ( talk) 02:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for the number of great GA reviews you've done lately, with precision and thoughtfulness. I hope we will continue to see you around GAN for some time to come. Dana boomer ( talk) 20:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks! A pleasure!
You're welcome, keep up the good work! I've noticed you're interested in road-related articles, you may want to check out WP:USRD. Dough 48 72 00:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the review, very much so. I have handled all issues at the subpage.-- Will C 22:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for passing and reviewing this article.-- Will C 23:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited George Went Hensley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church of God ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for reviewing and helping to improve Paiyaa! Uncomplicated and very fast, great! Johannes003 ( talk) 19:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Couple of suggestions:
I noticed you during a SPI I was compiling, and even quoted one of your diffs (sorry - I misspelled your name there). I wanted to let you know that the #2 contributor to your talk page was in fact a banned editor (not blocked, but banned) who had slipped under the radar for too long and got too comfortable. The case is now closed, but see this for further information. Cheers, and good luck :> Doc talk 05:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't get any help so I ignored his postings on my page and stopped reverting vandals on Ronald Reagan, in fact stopped all editing except reviewing GAs. It didn't occur to me he was a sockpuppet. But he was definitely out to get me. So I'm glad he was stopped. But won't he return again? What should I do in the future? Thanks! MathewTownsend ( talk) 22:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Many thanks for your review of Motul de San José - you didn't really give me a hard time, just a well-needed fresh eye! Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 10:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
Responded. Cheers, Res Mar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for passing the article and all the edits you made were perfectly fine, improved it very much. Certainly the fraction addition, I had no idea it was even possible to do that.-- Will C 22:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article. Unfortunately, I was unable to do much in response to many of your comments due to the limited sources available. If you can suggest sources that I have overlooked, I will be glad to include that material. Savidan 03:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mathew. Sorry it's been so long on the questions. I've loaded you up, so you've got some to do. I'm actually going to be stepping away from WP for a bit, so take your time - I'll check your answers when I get back. Shouldn't be more than a week or so. Hope all's well with you. WormTT · ( talk) 06:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your review for the MTV Unplugged album, I already fixed all the issues. Would you be kind enough to check them out? Jaespinoza ( talk) 02:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi MathewTownsend,
thanks a lot for reviewing the article on Bobby Driscoll so fast. Your browser is fine, the broken links are just because the references, linked in the article, once had been scanned and put on a website on Bobby Driscoll, which I ran from 2007- ca. mid-2009. But basically due to tightened and stricter copyright laws in Germany (I am from Germany), back then, I deleted the entire website. But the sources are still reliable (mainstream press etc.) - please read the comment (and my reply) under paragraph "references". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bobby_Driscoll Most of the original press-material I took from the newspaper-archive of anchestry.com. Now there are two options: either you suspend reviewing the aricle, giving me the time to re-upload the material on a neutral (and unlisted) website, in order to re-create the references/sources, or I temporarily withdraw the GA-assessment, with the same purpose. Frankly, I didn't expect the review this fast, since I read in the rules, that it can take some weeks until someone would find the time. But it would be very nice, anyway, if you could tell me your opinion, so I can concurrently revise the points in question. I guess, I was a bit too fast with my request for assessing the article. I'm really sorry for this inconvenience. regards -- Bylot ( talk) 14:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw that you edited the article on Bobby Driscoll. I created a backup copy of the article on my user-page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bylot/Bobby_Driscoll to freely work on the text without changing the actual article too often. When I'm finished I then just want to replace it entirely. I added some reduced Fair-Use images of Driscoll's most important movies and hope that there will be no problems with them. Best regards-- Bylot ( talk) 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Your changes were mostly fine. I made two nits. Savidan 06:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited St. Elizabeths Hospital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Justice ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I found it entertaining. The only doubt I find is that if names like the Fourth Hokage's and the Fox's whose names are revealed after their mention in the article should be added. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 02:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Mathew, thanks for your work on this week's Featured content. I wonder whether you're interested in contributing on a regular basis. Crisco is now the major editor (I did it for a year and a half, and I'm very glad to take a back seat). Tony (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)