Misplaced Pages

User talk:MathewTownsend

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lhb1239 (talk | contribs) at 22:45, 2 December 2011 (→Take a breath, please: don't touch the article while two RfC/noticeboard requests are pending). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:45, 2 December 2011 by Lhb1239 (talk | contribs) (→Take a breath, please: don't touch the article while two RfC/noticeboard requests are pending)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, MathewTownsend, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Meelar (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


Please help to establish notability of the minister from Nigeria you just posted. Just being a minister from Nigeria does not mean the subject is notable. Please review notability guidelines, and then write examples into the article with inline sourcing to external and reliable sources. Happy editing Standard2211 (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok for Daniel Ajayi-Adeniran. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

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)

I left a note on the article talk page and the article is on my watchlist. It looks ok for now! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
In the current edit war with User:Gertrude Lawrence...tag: you're it (for reverting back what's still being discussed on the Natalie Wood article talk page. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
ok. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

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)

Gladly! I wasn't going to do any more right now as I have noticed that you're working on it, but I'm happy that it's ok by you! Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a breath, please

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

Thank you for your advice and it is appreciated. The fact that it involves a WP:BLP though means that it is not ok just to leave accusatory and defaming information available in a highly trafficked article while we hash this out. I think the responsible solution would be to remove the information accusing Robert Wagner of causing Natalie Wood's death until this is settles. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
(1) It's "libel", not "slander", when in written form.
(2) How do you know for a fact the article is "highly trafficked" or not?
(3) There's nothing in the article that accuses anyone - it is your opinion based on you reading into what's there.
(4) Don't touch what's in there while you have two (and there should really only be one at a time) RfCs going at two different noticeboards.
(5) If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level. And I really, really don't want to do that.
Lhb1239 (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)