ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
User talk:Matt Lewis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Matt Lewis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your edits to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Keith D 21:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't get excitied, this was Wikipedias error! (I had the edit window open since earlier today). It posted over the last few entries when I finally entered it. So why jump in and 'warning1' me? How about some poise and politeness instead of waving a stick? Honestly! I'm one of the good guys. --Matt Lewis 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the warning - the loss of sections of the page looked like vandalism. My edit to the page also failed to achieve what I intended. Now you have re-added your comments I can see what was intended and withdraw the warning. Keith D 22:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing the Guideline on UK Nationality naming

Matt, I think your contributions to the talk page have been very reasoned, despite the passion. MurphiaMan 08:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. --Matt Lewis 09:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Core Contest

Hi Matt Lewis, I mostly agree with your essay on core contest, though it was long-winded for my taste. Please help me to place the opposing view on the project page. See the comment 2 above yours on the discussion page. Bensaccount (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline question

Here are the answers to the questions I would give:

  1. If the editor is involved in the article's daily editing processes it is much less likely that he will be appeased by superficial edits that increase the wordiness or truthiness of the article, because if he bothers to edit regularly it means he probably cares about the topic. There is still a chance that he will be a biased judge, but his bias will be apparent to all the people who edit the article. Therefore I would say there is no problem in such a case.
  2. If the edits are assumed to be of lower quality it basically means they will be more closely watched.
  3. The guideline should be followed by all users the same way other guidelines are followed.
  4. The reason would be to limit the flawed results that come from appeasement of judges not actively engaged in the creation, editing, or discussion of the articles. Such flaws could be indifference, superficiality, bias, vagueness, etc.
  5. The main achievement would be that when there is an edit conflict between a regular user and one who admits to editing to appease Mcdonalds, the former user should automatically get his version. This will ensure that the article is written by users who actually care about the subject. If the user who is editing for McDonalds also cares he will not admit to editing for McDonalds, and his edits will be evaluated solely on inherent value. If he is unable to hide his motives (for whatever reason), he should have to give up appeasing his judge to receive equal footing.

What do you think?

Bensaccount 22:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I’m personally going to sleep on this. My advice is not to let them rush us, what do you think? They’ve got nothing to say have they – they are just waiting for us to comment, so they can counter every point we make. Personally I think that guys last ‘Proposed blah blah’ heading should be totally ignored – any kind of reply by you will get a counter response by him, however rational you are. It was written purely to wind you up. You need to start on your own footing, not his ignorant one. Maybe we could even start afresh on a guideline talk page, offering people a link. I've said all I want to say on the competition page now. --Matt Lewis 22:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I might have been over the top with the negative comments - he apologised anyway, allowing that it takes time to work something out.

I've been looking at Wikipedia's policies etc and reading the arguments again. I still haven't settled it in my head, but I'm getting your drift. Proposing a guideline certainly looks like it's the way to go. The competition talk page is the perfect place to promote it - as all sides were present, which is important in campaigning, I'm reading. Around 15 people on 'our side' have currently made comments - I've not counted the opposing views - it was more of course, but it is the competition's talk page after all! Still, 15's a good figure to promote to - hopefully most of them will have the page in their watchlist, having contributed. It would be interesting to see how far the Veropedia people can go in a guideline proposal page, or even in a vote! --Matt Lewis 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alzheimer's

Thanks for your copy edits on the AD page. Garrando is not a native English speaker and does not have the perfect ear for our language. He has contributed a bunch tho, and with your help, we can make the copy valuable to all of our readers. Keep it up! --Chrispounds (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't read it for ages and it is surprising what you notice. I'll go through the whole thing looking for typos etc. My 'big thing' is how well a layman can read the layman-relevant parts of the topic, so I'll probably be re-writing the odd bit too (I've just done a little already - on a part I feel is of primary interest to everyone reading the article). Feel free to correct any mistakes, or argue over words used etc. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was also rewritting the stages part. I had done the predementia and middle stage, but I still have to go with the advanced stage. Right now I don´t have much time, so feel free to begin with it, however I think its priority one to find proper citations (pubmed-abstracts) for any assertion we make. Respective to the layman understanding I believe the most difficult part is pathophisiology. I have asked in the talkpge for somebody to do an easy and understandable summary of that part but nobody has done it yet. Best regards and sorry for my typos mistakes. --Garrondo (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I like your Prognosis heading - I was searching for that word last night. RE mid-stage aggression, I've thus far found examples as forum-style messages - not ideal for citations unfortunately. I've seen it with my own eyes too, but of course citations don't work like that either. The aggression effects all the people surrounding AD emotionally - as much as the memory lapses in my experience, so I feel it does need explaining that it can occur in the mid stages too. For certain people, it could even occur in what appears an early stage. Many factors clearly make people react individually to AD IMO, but it’s hard to find written evidence that includes enough data (compared symptoms (and lack of symptoms), period since diagnosis etc) – though you do occasionally see the odd caveat around (and at least we have one ourselves now).
To be honest, I never feel entirely happy with the stage model every time I read it, but I suppose it helps to give an overall picture. Unfortunately it was used by the NHS as a basis for prescribing Donepezil and other drugs of that type. The UK gov controversially stopped the prescription to less than ‘moderate’ stages, with drug expense and effect factored. My worry that people can make a 'stage' diagnosis based on how people appear to fit in with a simple model – when the symptoms clearly cross over the stages as people deal with them differently both physically and psychologically. As we don't know how and when AD starts (and it has such widely varying lifecycles within the stage model too) it seems too flawed to base such important decisions as saving on the cost of Aricept on. The stage model appears like a simple chronological one – but the world of AD is clearly a lot more complicated than that. If there are considered criticisms out there, they certainly should be covered here IMO.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please answer me in my talk page... I don´t watch every talk page of every editor and I found your answer by chance. I agree that the stage model is not perfect but that happens with any kind of classification based on syntoms as symtoms are quite variable in most diseases. I agree therefore that is quite dangerous to take decisions based on it. However I believe its an interesting model to show the prototypic evolution of the disease. Any model is a simplification of reality and its there precisely where it lays its strongest and weakest points. I´m sure that agression appears also sometimes in the early stage, but its in the break point in the continum between the medium and last stage when its more common, since its usually related to an important decrease in executive functions capacities. I decided to leave it in the last stage but if you find a ref that it says that this symtom is usually categorized in the medium stage feel free to move it. You could probably find something if you look for neuropsychiatry and alzheimer in pubmed.
Other thing: What do you mean with IMO? I didn´t understand you.
Finally I wanted to tell you that I have proposed a change on the media and famous people section (see talk page) and I wanted your opinion. I don´t like how it is right now one name or title after another. I believe that me approach is far more readeable.
--Garrondo (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (please answer in my talkpage). Best regards.
Hi Matt, thanks for your suggestion about how to post an article about Cognitive Retention Therapy i have posted it now, would you be able to give me some feedback or opinions on it or help me "spruce it up" a bit? -Chris Ashby | Talk 21:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I give it a look and maybe help - the problem is I sometimes offer promises I can't keep! There's plenty to do on Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright here is another much more unbiased approach, tell me if you think this is better. Cognitive therapies for dementia -Chris Ashby | Talk 18:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashby82 (talk • contribs)
I had a look at them both now - sorry for delay. My WP time's been caught up elsewhere. I've made a few contributions, and have left comments in the Talk pages. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, you need to get your user page going. Ideally, declare your interest, as you did on the AD page. Your name will stop being red too! --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alzheimer's in the media

I created the subarticle when I deleted the info from main page but now has been proposed for deletion. We have added references to improve it, but a vote opposing would be welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrondo (talk • contribs) 13:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're just working slightly too fast for Wikipedia, Garrondo! I do appreciate your dedication (and the reasons for it)- so hope you don't think I am too critical. Ironically, Ive been caught up in an AfD (Article for Deletion) elsewhere - which is where a lot of my WP time has gone the past few days. They are only up 5 days maximum before a decision is made.
People are often occasionally quick to recommend articles for deletion - so I'm sure it will be OK. I'll put my support down to rename and help improve it. Didn't you like the idea of the "Sociological and cultural aspects of Alzheimer's" as per Autism? If you had put Autism being a FA in the new discussion page, I doubt it would be up for deletion! Really we need to build some structure as well as get in the info - it's hard us all working like this though, I know (different countries/work hours/priorities etc - and things can go backwards when others jump in!). It does get slow sometimes, but I think we are on the right track and it will build properly now. I do have the dedication (like yourself), I just have to work out the application part. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured articles

Sorry to reverse your edits but featured article review is where we review articles that are already FA-status, and isn't a staging ground for featured article candidates. Good article nominations and peer review are often used for that purpose, and this article has already been through those processes, but you could ask for a good article re-assessment or a second peer review if you wanted further feedback. Best wishes, DrKiernan (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So it was the wrong place? How do you nominate then? The GA process was lousy - the standards were too poor. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The nominations page is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates but I strongly recommend that you either delete the sentences with [citation needed] at the end (e.g. "Pratchett is also fond of inventing colours[citation needed], such as ultrablack or octarine, a "greenish-yellow purple" colour.[citation needed]" or insert a reference where the [citation needed] tags request one, otherwise you'll get pile on oppose votes. DrKiernan (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, cheers - I can see what I did wrong!!!! (thanks for advise) --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wndl42 (his heading changed)

Fyi, the Wikiquette noticeboard has been updated as follows:

see here

riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ROFL! MurphiaMan (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Matt, just wanted to share a final thought before the outcome of the Wikiquette alert. Everybody has a POV, yours appears to include a lot of passion over the your feelings about Islam, and I can see that from your talk page and from your edit history. When conflicts arise, it's natural to assume others have POVs, since we all do, but don't assume bad faith. Suggest you review WP:AGF for context.
Next time, before posting personal attacks on other user's talk pages, perhaps spending a few minutes reading their talk pages and reviewing their edit history will help you get to know your fellow editors and prevent situations like this. Had you read even just the talk page entry immediately above your entry, you'd have had a chance to get to know me before winding up in this unfortunate situation. You'd also have a chance to see how editors with polar opposite POV's can nonetheless get along. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The cake mixture and the fruit! Help! I had to take the article off my watchlist it started looking so crackers. I stuck with it back to consensus, then he pulled his jumbo paint set out. He kept gettting his wrist slapped for his own complaint too - finally for blackmailing me! hhh I can laugh now. Plenty of other stuff to do.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've changed his 'Alert' heading because he was scolded for filing it - and it's occured to me how bad this page is looking! I'm a nice guy! --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RolandR

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RolandR, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RolandR (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this nonsense? I am an editor in good standing, with no sockpuppets. You claim that I am a sockpuppet of myself! I have been subjected to a probably unprecedented barrage of abuse by nearly 400 sockpuppets, who have so far made almost 2000 edits to more than 350 articles. These are generally to articles about the Middle East or left-wing politics, and generally attack me by name. SeeCategory:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Runtshit for further details. Of course I am not doing this myself, and I request that you withdeaw rthis ridiculous accusation forthwith. RolandR (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Steady on, I merely made the error of thinking the "Roland Rance" sockpupeteer was you. What's the story with that? The guy really pees me off - he's always on my watchlist. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RolandR

Is this a case of mistaken identity? If so, I'll delete it. Thank you. Rudget. 19:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - can you sort something out with the "Roland Rance" character? He appears on my watchlist all the time with a slight variation on his name, and is always vandalising articles I'm interested in. Is it because he moves around - what's the story? Is he abusing RolandR? --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, okay the page has been deleted. Not sure about the Roland Rance person you mention (it doesn't exist), did you mean the banned user Runtshit? Rudget. 20:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you talk to RolandR about a connection? Reading the above it looks like he has had some problems.
I remember the sockpuppeteer as different variations of "Roland Rance", attacking various left wing articles.
Looking down the George Galloway history, I can see: Arrest pol pot stoogerance, Vivisect rance, Waterboard Rance17, Waterboard Rance15, Waterboard Rance14, Waterboard Rance12, Waterboard Rance, Rancejailed, Ranceretarded), TheRanceshit, Bugger derance, Upyoursrance, Ranceintoilet, Potty rance, Rancedung
He's also been Waterboard rance 9, Waterboard Rance12 on Respect coalition page etc... --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Clearly it is Runtshit (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Runtshit) - see RolandR's message above. He nearly alwasy uses 'rance' is some way. This is all going a bit fast for me - sorry! --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles

  • Matt, please keep the discussion on topic and avoid the use of emotive terms designed to incite arguments. Please keep your tone civil - you comment of keep looking down sailor borders on a personal attack. I have no personal beef with you, but I can't help but feel that because you have been passionate about your POV for so long, you are very aggressive and antagonistic in your replies, and reading insults and challenges into comments where none are intended. And sure, one or two people appear to deliberately try to goad everyone into an argument, but the rest of us can avoid it... Bardcom (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, well I initially thought your pretty calm and civil - but after you strongly took the mick out of my atlas example (which was perfectly reasonable surely) I thought you were joining in the silly games, and playing at being civil as a wind-up! - sorry if I got it wrong. You began with "Where do I start?" and went on to suggest that all my arguments were illogical and foolish! Lots of people play games on WP - sometimes I ignore them - sometimes I hit them head on. It's only the argument that matters to me, and usually only because it has some kind of personal importance. Some people jump from between being very agressive and OTT, into sudden lightheartedness - and often they incite, you are right. Whatever I am like myself, at least myself I keep hold of everyone's points (when people spend all of 2 seconds 'reading' my comments/replies is the really frustrating thing to me!). My Land ahoyyy/"sailor" comment was just supposed to be a 'flat earth' reference, btw (to show how much I find the removal of "British Isles" cultish and obscure) - it don't know if it sounded like anything else! (sorry if it did though!) --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks Matt. Yeah, the sailor comment is mostly harmless when you put it into that context :-) Bardcom (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not the sailor comment is harmless, the first two sentences of this edit are not acceptable behaviour. Please don't repeat it. Waggers (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
How rude, sanctimonious, and provocative is all that? I must assume you followed the conversation that provoked my "dimwit" comment? Provocation is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and the whole picture is considered at arbitration. I have since been called a "moron" by that person, and the deliberately-repeated offending comment that lead to my "repetition of a dim-wit" reaction has been childishly repeated again since (and without any hint of subtlety). Do you think that is acceptable behaviour? It is provocation - I can deal with up-front, but I won't have my Talk page treated like this.
I will warn you over your "Whether or not the sailor comment is harmless" - you must 'assume good faith', and not suggest I am insincere: I apologised for any offence I might have caused Bardcom, which he accepted in good humour - you have no right to bring back up in an insinuating way. I have to ask myself why would you want to offend and upset me by 'wading in' this manner, and sullying my Talk page. I am entitled to be very suspicious here, and I'm too busy to be provoked and bullied from wide angles. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"Harbouring anamosity towards a past or present Britain is not the best foundation to instigate something like this ..." - Quite right, but that's not what the substance of it is. Yesterday, a strange event occurred. A (southern) Irish politician - grandson of an Old IRA volunteer, nephew of a government minister expelled for running guns to the Provisional IRA in the 70's, from the party with the strongest roots to original Sinn Féin and known in English as "the Republician Party" - was sent as an envoy to the North to convince Northern Unionists to take their seats in an assembly for the government of Britain and Ireland as one. Truly bizarre!
In that article, you might notice that that assembly is looking at it's name. Names are great definers. (There's an argument over at Talk:United Kingdom over the foundation date for the UK, the substance of which is whether a small or capital 'u' appeared in name of the 1707 state.) Again, in that body, as well as the British-Irish Council, the term "British Isles" is studiously avoided. Though patently not through animosity. --sony-youthpléigh 09:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Matt...

I thought you might like this (great mp3's) and this. For the latter, there are hundreds of sayings to see if you click repeatedly. WNDL42 (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I've responded in detail at United States journalism scandals, can we continue to discuss before you remove links from related articles? (Insight magazine) Thanks...WNDL42 (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the link because it links to a locked page that is frozen in an objectionable state - it's simply not good form to keep a "see also" link in under those circumstances! I happen not to think it's a needed link anyway. The page is merely a list of "scandals" that are covered om the main pages anyway - so what's the point of using it as a "see also"? I just means more to protect, and more for the unscrupulous to try and control.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, but the "see also" is needed to help our readers understand the motives behind the scandal.

[edit] Echo chamber is not "original research"

Matt, you told me that: "We disagreed fundamentally over Original Research. I'm a straight down the line facts man - if we don't use the same rule book, more changes get made, and more time gets wasted. I'm aware of what you call the "echo chamber effect"...Mentioning terms like "Echo chamber effect" in articles is to go the other way, though!"


Matt, I have shown you repeatedly that the "ECHO CHAMBER" is NOT original research, and have sourced it well and fully over and over and over again, here and here and here and HERE and HERE. You now have thousands of sources for you on that "Echo chamber", so please stop (a) calling it "original research", (b) telling me that I am "wasting time" and (a) implying that "Mentioning terms like "Echo chamber effect" is somehow "against the rules", OK? WNDL42 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See news: Reverend Moon's Anti-Obama Agit-Prop Thursday, 25 January 2007, 10:35 am

If you've ever wondered how agit-propaganda works, you might take a look at the latest case study from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's media empire - a bogus story about Barack Obama attending a Muslim "madrassah" when he was six years old, a smear that was then attributed to operatives of Hillary Clinton.

The shrewdness of Moon's Insight magazine story is that it hit two enemies with one anonymously sourced stone, a strategy of slime and divide straight from the textbooks of a spy agency like the CIA.

Only in this case, it is not the CIA planting black propaganda in a foreign publication to undermine some U.S. enemy. It is Moon using his media outlets subsidized by his mysterious foreign money to manipulate and distort the U.S. political process, again.

The Insight "madrassah" story also turned out to be false. As CNN reported on Jan. 22, the Indonesian school that Obama attended as a child was not a "madrassah" where sometimes extreme forms of Islam are taught, but rather a well-kept public school in an upper-middle-class neighborhood of Jakarta.

The boys and girls wear school uniforms and are taught a typical school curriculum today as they were 39 years ago when Obama was a student there, while living with his mother in Indonesia, reported CNN correspondent John Vause, who has had prior experience covering real "madrassahs."

While most of the school's students are Muslim - Indonesia is a Muslim country, after all - Vause reported that the religious views of other students are respected and that Christian children at the school are taught that Jesus is the son of God.

Nevertheless, the nasty Insight story is sure to hurt Obama by pushing anti-Islamic hot buttons of many Americans. By citing Clinton operatives as the supposed source of the story, Moon's publication also played to the negative image of the New York senator as a ruthless politician who would sling mud at an opponent.

Moon's media empire has planted similar stories in other U.S. presidential campaigns, publishing false or exaggerated stories that disparaged Democratic candidates and helped Moon's political favorites - particularly in the Bush family.

In Election 1988, Moon's Washington Times floated a story that Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis had psychiatric treatment, harming George H.W. Bush's Democratic opponent; in Election 1992, it bannered an accusation that Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton had worked for the KGB, again aiding the senior George Bush; in Election 2000, when George W. Bush was seeking the White House, the Times pushed allegations that Vice President Al Gore was "delusional"; in Election 2004, to boost the younger George Bush again, it trumpeted attacks on Sen. John Kerry's patriotism.

The Right's Echo Chamber

Once Moon's media empire surfaced these accusations, they would reverberate through the right-wing echo chamber and often into the mainstream press. Usually, the charges spotlighted a purported flaw so severe - such as mental instability or treason - that the Democrat would be disqualified in the eyes of many voters.

There's the truth. Please read the whole article here 16:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WNDL, I't not saying the "Echo chamber effect" doesn't exist (though I'd not heard the term, and must question its real-terms popularity). It's the way you've gone about heavily "highlghting" it as a fact here, that falls under "Original Research" to me. As I said many times - we are not journalists!!!! It might be better for point out "Weight" etc (see below). Also, you have a determined and personal approach that has not been condusive to consensus IMO. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine article.
Some policy:
WP:No Point of View - Undue Weight (Policy) - Always the starting point.
WP:No Original Research (Policy) - Always worth a refresher.
WP:Wikipedia is not a News report (Policy) - We are not journalists.
WP:Let the facts speak for themselves (Policy) - Advises against over-description of facts that are already simple, well-covered and conclusive.
WP:Neutrality and Verifiability (Policy) - Shows how an abundance of passable citations cannot negate fundamental neutrality issues.
It's no great accusation to question Original Research, or to complain that time has been wasted - please don't get so offended. Try and see it from my point of view.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Matt,
(1) I'm already supporting you on the madrassah angle, I appreciate (and even agree) with your POV.
(2) None of the policies you cite above have anything to do with whether or not "echo chamber" belongs in the article or not, and I have no clue why you cite them.
(3) the "Echo chamber media effect" in this context is notable, relevant, established and supported by thousands of reliable sources.
Perhaps you should (a) analyze the comments and sources I've given you and (b) tell me why you think they are invalid instead of posting policies -- all of which, I can assure you, I am thoroughly familiar with.
Honestly...I'm not sure what you are arguing for/against, or with whom you are arguing. My simple request...don't call it "original research" after you have been shown that it's NOT. Finally, may I ask if you took time to click the links I provided before you said "I'd not heard the term, and must question its real-terms popularity". Please, click here, and examine the explicit query construction I used, and then click the search button and examine 1, 10, 100, or 1,000 of the 1,310 references you will then see, and decide for yourself the question of "real-terms popularity". All I can do is give you the evidence, I can't make you look at it or force you to agree with it. Let's (please) move on? You and I have important things to go off and agree on [ ;-) ]. WNDL42 (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The Kewords for a Google search would have to be: myung media "echo chamber" -wikipedia. If you type that in you get 986. Click on "page 5" (you must click on the last or latter pages with Google to get the REAL figure) and you get 318. Most of those are blogs. Do the major papers use it? That's what I meant by "real-terms" popularity. It is quite easy to get a seemingly 'high' figure on Google, especially as it trawls so much - including millions of mirrored pages etc.
Surprisingly, if you search for: "echo chamber" -wikipedia: Google gives "about 472,000" results. Click on page 10 and the total become 843! So not hugely used even on its own - and how much outside of the USA, I wonder? As "echo chamber" was orginally to do with sound effects - many people refer to that. There is a band by the name too (so lots of youtube etc). Comparing the 318 "myung media" figure with the 'mixed' total of 843 is interesting, especially with the amount of blogs involved. Perhaps the word "echo chamber" has grown via a kind-of "echo chamber" effect!!!
"Madrassa" is my main issue anyway - it's the only reason I came beack to the Obama articles. You can do what you want with the "echo chamber effect" as far as I'm concerned - I've got too many other pages on my watchlist to bother arguing over something I would normally agree with conversationally! You are right - we must focus on "madrassa". --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AD treatment

Re palliative care - is there some part of AD treatment that is NOT palliative care? If so we should say what. My understanding is that as yet there is no cure.LeadSongDog (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that not calling Caregiving a form of "Treatment" will eventually see the sub-section moved somewhere else. Leave the word "treatment" in and you can word it however accurately you see it (even remove "palliative" entirely - which might not be a bad idea). I'll give it a go now...--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, I changed the Treatment section lead too. That's where the palliative care comment belongs.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please visit Talk:Alzheimer's disease. We're discussing a topic you likely will find to be of interest.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - this has to be covered. I'm off out in a bit, but I'll read through it and try and comment. I'll correct your last comment to it, btw - it's got a strikethrough in it that looks like a typo(?). --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shortened block on WNDL42

I posted this on Rlevse's talk page, but:

I agree with MBisanz's statement on Rlevse's talk page. I'll monitor Windl and take appropriate action if he continues edit warring. Blocks are preventative and not puntative, and with the unfairness of how the blocking and then self-reviewing admin..who then made snarky remarks to top it off, I decided to shorten the block even furhter. And yes, there were several emails to me about this situation. Dreadstar † 04:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Make sure you read this before you act..well, if you act. Have a good sleep. Dreadstar † 05:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notification: AfD on List of United States journalism scandals

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of United States journalism scandals, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of United States journalism scandals. WNDL42 (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have informed you many times now, "List of United States journalism scandals" was suggested in the AfD on "United States journalism scandals" (by the article-creator admin FT2, and Fram (who judged the AfD). --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of United States journalism scandals

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article List of United States journalism scandals, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why oppose an outline on Wales?

Why have you opposed posting an outline of the changes that other editors have asked you to post? We are not averse to changes but you are making unilateral decisions which may be objectionable resulting in edit wars and revisions. Please take the time to cooperate with other editors to avoid misunderstandings. Drachenfyre (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to post on Talk every bit of prose I write for approval - but the problem with moving sections is that they need to be pictured in situe (and I did say I'd go ahead and do this). I realise the article is semi-protected and people are probably touchy. You can always put my changes back - I won't revert if you do. I just wanted people to have a chance to see what can be done. I'm going to do the research on other countries - I'm sure its just the English and US ones that are so rigid with formulaic sections (I've found a number that veer away now - especially over Etymology) --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets start anew, to make the page better.Drachenfyre (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wales talk archived

I had thought that the 'older' conversations (imo) seemed to have ran their corse, and given that we (all of us) were about to embark on a page rewrite, I felt that we needed a clean page to discuss upcoming changes. No disrespect intended here, was just clearing up space. Shall I repost the information? I do not mind doing that, was attempting to be proactive with our upcoming discussions was all.

Have you previewed my submission for an outline?Drachenfyre (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think putting it back is best, as some were only days old (so we can't be certain) and the page isn't particulaly long yet. I had a hunch you were doing what you say - but surely you see the irony for me though? I did see your lengthened outline - but havent had time to study it yet.
I can bend on 'Etymology' (though I don't see why it's so important that it comes first, when many other articles don't have it first - or even at all in section form, or have it within a sub-article) but I'd like us to remove what I see as a slight but firm 'union-bias' out of the article (the weight towards highlighting words like Principality). For me it's all about Wales as a living country first and foremost. Wales is a living and developing country - not a note in history. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've put my above reply in Wales Talk as we are discussing it there too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ive replied as well on the Talk:Wales. But I did wish for you to understand my perspective. As an American my point of view is of no real consequence for Wales.... but I sympathize with an independence of Wales, and prehaps with a restored 'Welsh prince of Wales' as Saunders Lewis and others have. But that is the romantic historian in meDrachenfyre (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a realist - the idea of princeship is a bit of a nonsense to me I’m afraid. I’m very Welsh, but have always thought Britain in the modern age works (excepting NI). It’s certainly been too London-centric over the years, and has been over-controlled by a right-wing govt lately – but the world will be the worse without it (though it might not seem that way looking at the news). The anglo-celtic symbiosis (that had to happen historically) has given the world a great deal. I have the ability and the right to feel both Welsh and British (and simply a human too – my real calling in life). When I look at the big picture of the life around me (esp culturally) - it's simply British. It's not European - it's certainly Welsh on an immediate level, but over that it is simply and clearly British - and I don't wish to remove that element (though I do want more Assembly power). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Duely noted my friend :) . I do have great respect for the 'anglo-celtic symbiosis', as you mention, and recognize the contrabutions that, that interchange between cultures have produced. Weather Scotland and Wales become independent or not, in this day and age, I think there will continue to be an interchange of ideas and culture, a working together, so it becomes somewhat of a mute point. Except when one considers the self-determination of a people (witness Kosovo). I look forward to working with you on the Wales page. I think our joint goal is to create a professional page that distinguishes Wales♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 02:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
On a side note, until the BBC Wales redid their home page, there was a section called BBC Wales News, and BBC Wales Sport. on the BBC Scotland homepage you still see BBC Scottish News and BBC Scottish Sports. After the BBC Wales homepage redid their page, they dropped the 'Wales' part of the News and Sports page.... it took me a minute to realize that they still linked to Welsh news and sport. Now it simply reads BBC News, and BBC Sports on the BBC Wales homepage. Have you noticed this? As someone involved in the media I thought you might have. I have sent a 'complaint' hoping that it was a simple oversight... and showed them the BBC Scottish news... but they simply responded they will pass the information along. What are your thoughts on that? I mean... is it not confusing not to have the 'Wales' as part of the title for news coverage of Wales interest?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 02:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UK MP's Voting record

The information is not essential or even necessary to the article at all. The fact that an Mp has voted a certain way is part of their job. If the person broke ranks and helped cause a government defeat then that is note worthy. However wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and as such should not start down the slope of including how every single MP votes and every signal issue the article is about the person not their voting habits.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Engage in discussion and do not threaten me with being reported you have done exactly the same as whet i have done. Engage in discussion of the issue rather the pushing your own view by continuous reverting and failure to engage in discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed this repeatedly on Talk:David_Lammy - it is no use pretending I haven't. I have merely protected the article - it is you who have persisted with your change. I'm not threatening - I'm acting. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion you are being disruptive by preventing the improvement of the articles. I am simply trying to prevent spurious information form being mindlessly disseminated.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Copying and pasting material from other websites is not acceptable. Facts are public domain. The presentation of those facts (ie, the exact same issues in the exact same order and nearly the exact same wording) is copyrightable. Please do not re-add it unless you write it in your own words. My suggestion for avoiding plagiarism is that you don't even have the source website up when you write it - write whatever it is you want to write, then go back and correct spelling/facts/whatever based on the source. That way, you completely avoid any possibility of copying. --B (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This wasn't actually "copy/pasted" - see my NOTE below. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. It wasn't me who put them up (though I strongly support their inclusion) - so I wasn't aware they were directly 'copied and pasted'! I will rearrange the order and slightly re-word them (which should be enough, given these are freely-available statistics). Thanks for the advice. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest going much further than that. Slightly rewording is still a derivative work. I would suggest incorporating facts from other sources (for example, issues mentioned on other websites) or presenting a select group of key issues along with examples. You could write something like this:
“ Lammy is a strong supporter of XYZ, for which he co-sponsored the XYZ Reform Act of 2002.[1] He voted against ABC both times it came up and told supporters, "ABC is an unmitigated disaster for our country."[2] He is most known for his moderate position on 123, where he brokered the 123 Compromise Act of 2005, a bipartisan resolution that ended 123 abuse.[3] ”
This presentation is more useful to the reader and unquestionably not plagiarism. --B (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps as a summary too? theyworkforyou.com is about free public information, and is a semi-WIki that has free licences within it - I don't think there was actually a copyright problem here anyway!! Lucymarie has been caught seriously sock-puppeting before - I'll have to go my own way (ie back to consensus), sorry - no bad faith intended honestly, but I'm very serious about this information being included. These list have been on Wikipedia for a while - it is just not fair that one person can go from article to article removing them. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing on their website that I can find that makes their content available under the GFDL. "All rights reserved" is the default copyright and even if the rights holder does not explicitly claim copyright, it is automatically conferred when they produce a creative work. Consensus cannot override copyright law. The underlying facts are public domain. The presentation of those facts is copyrighted work. A test for determining whether or not your wording is a copyright violation is whether or not a person off of the street, when handed both versions, would conclude that one was derived from the other. If you include facts from other sources or completely rewrite it from scratch then you are good. --B (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The licence I saw was actually to do with adding code, but I got the impression that the whole sight was like that. I didn't have the time to fully check (I couldn't find anything either way to do with text). I do fully accept though that we must always err on the side of caution on Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and leave the past where it belongs in the past.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, it seems clear to me that you had violated WP:3RR at the David Lammy page. In future please spend more time discussing and trying to understand other editors' positions and reach compromise, and less time reverting. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC) (striking out the rest of the comment. 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC))
(inserted later while striking out the above comment) I'm sorry. I hadn't read the whole discussion at the noticeboard before posting that. It was unnecessary and repetitive for me to post that, since EdJohnston had already posted a similar opinion on the noticeboard and you had had an opportunity to see that when you posted there afterward, so there was no need for me to post here to make sure you were aware of it. Besides, there may be differing opinions as to whether there was a violation or not. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I did discuss it in Talk and always do, thanks (over half my edits are discussion). Are you running for admin or something? I don't appreciate your passing-by comment here, or on the 3RR page. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to bother you. Maybe I should have worded my comment more diplomatically. One reason I posted was that I thought you might not have been aware that you'd violated 3RR. Some people misunderstand how the rules work in various ways. I thought it would be good to let you know so you could avoid violations in future. I'm not an admin. I've been posting on the 3RR page and related talk pages etc. since March 20. As far as I know you're the first person who's complained about it. Non-admins regularly warn other users about 3RR violations, although usually it's with regard to pages they're involved in editing. I've seen it explicitly stated that non-admins are welcome to post opinions at WP:AN/I, (where I also post from time to time), and I believe the same applies to WP:AN/3RR.
If I'd read all your comments on the 3RR page first, I probably would have left you alone. Maybe the amount of time you spend discussing things is perfectly fine, and it's only the reverting that needed to diminish. I'm not exactly "passing by"; I'm actively and systematically helping enforce the WP:3RR policy via the noticeboard. One of the things I do, for example, is add information to incomplete reports. Sorry, but I don't think warnings necessarily have to be appreciated by the recipient to be effective as part of the enforcement process, though as I said I could have worded it more diplomatically. I've struck out the second sentence. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that, thanks. Sometimes I do get a little paranoid when people seem to 'pop up', but I can see you're a contributor to the 3RR pages now. I've apologised on the 3RR page for filing the report, as I clearly 'jumped the gun' and shouldn't have gone through the (quite laborious!) task. I admit I didn't properly consider my own reverts, as I was replacing old text and felt very righteous about it (which by the way wasn't 'copied and pasted' after all - it was clearly edited by whoever originally put it in...). As it happens, it's the first time I've gone so far as to report someone on Wikipedia. I felt that strongly about it - and it's over a number of articles, so we'll have to sort it out (clearly through Talk). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That's OK. We're all just trying to make the encyclopedia the best we can, each in our own way. Maybe when I post warnings I should mention that I help out at 3RR so people won't wonder where I suddenly appeared from! I run into the same copyright problem at Simple English Wikiquote. Even though the actual quotes of someone from long ago may not be copyrighted, a collection of their quotes is still copyrighted, because of the work that went into collecting the quotes, and even if we select some from the collection, it can still be considered copyrighted -- unless maybe it's just a small number like two or three quotes. I don't think anyone knows what the exact cutoff number is; it may depend on context. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's interesting. When I attempt at putting back a non-arguable version (regarding copyright at least - probably tomorrow now) I'll look for some other major votes to add to it. If I can't find any I'll try and write an additional paragraph, explaining what "key" entails - or why they are considered important - giving citations regarding that too, which should help. I probably should do that anyway. I'm hoping that when they are dated they will all be in a different order too - but with my luck, dating them will actually keep them in the same order! It is surely extreme to have to remove some of the votes - Trident maybe? The smoking ban?. It's like a "one-off - first come first serve" rule for the displaying of public information! I believe some formatting will do the trick. Thinking about it - extra information could be whether there was actualy a whip or not (there aren't always whips attached to votes). Maybe a table perhaps... I'll have a think.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I know. It seems kindof unjust to not be allowed to use information like that. However, that's the way it is, apparently. Rhetorical question: Who decided that these particular votes are "key"? Maybe there are some other votes that a different person compiling the list would have included. Try not to think in terms of reformatting. It's the basic information itself that's copyrighted; changing the format doesn't really help. Maybe the same information is also available on a government website or something, with different copyright status: i.e. a more complete list of votes from which you could pull out key ones based on news articles or something. (Sorry if that comment is off the mark. I haven't looked closely at the material you're working with.) Thanks for the effort you've already put into trying to keep the information in the article: a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, thank you for striking out your comment at 3RR. I appreciate it. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE on copyright and "copy and paste":

I took User:B's word that David Lammy's voting record was "copied and pasted" - it actually did appear to be on first glance, but was clearly edited:

The data was clearly intentionally edited by whoever introduced it - all the "strongly"'s and "moderately"'s were removed. I will add dates to each of the votes, and swap the use of bold for caps, so there can be absolutely no copyright issues over keeping this information in all the MP's articles. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at WP:AN3

As per my message at the 3RR noticeboard, it is not appropriate for discussion to take place there. I have removed the discussion after my request to stop, although it is accessible in the page history. I recommend that if you want to continue the discussion you use User talk:B. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Lucy-marie‎ reported by User:Matt Lewis

Hi. I wasn't sure what "/dev/null" meant - so am reaching you here. I have a question and some points regarding the "nominator warned" result, and have written quite a lot. Before I take your time up with them though, can I just ask you this? Does the result have to end with someone being warned? Can you look at it again, because I am (and have) worked on this in good faith. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

/dev/null is explained at its article; I linked it wrongly at the report.
For the answer to your second question please read Wikipedia:AN3#What_might_happen. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't feel "compromised by the warning". It is only letting you know of the relevant Wikipedia rule.
However, there really wasn't any 3RR violation. There would have had to be more than three reverts to break the rule. I strongly recommend you just carry on and leave this behind. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I’ve noticed on these things there are a number of other 'Results' people put in - like "Not blocked", for example. Why could you not just do that? I have to say that as I'm spending my free time working on this article I'm still really hacked-off with your decision, and particularly how it was made - you did have other options, but clearly thought I was misbehaving at the time. Why aren't you now using the other options?
As for the warning not making a difference in the future, the way I've seen a few admins work now means that I just simply can't accept that. How do you know I won't be compromised? - I genuinely feel compromised now, because I've seen so much of how editors and admins think and work. The mistake you made regarding user:B could easily be made by another admin when seeing the "warning". It's a simple truth on Wikipedia that admins 'take on' so much that they often fail to spent the appropriate time over cases - and pre-existing tags like "nominator warned" (not to mention mischievous editors incorrect "tell-tale" comments, like B's) are irresistible information to admins eager to make a quick judgement.
I’m still genuinely insulted and wound-up by this - as I work compiling data I'm just thinking why the hell am I working in this unprofessional playground? (hence me writing this now - really - what am I doing here?). The user’s signature represents a human being - I honestly wonder what admins think at times. Does the mind get digitised? The stakes are so high on Wikipedia because of the length that some people are prepared to go to - it's a dramatic and time-consuming business sometimes even moving the shortest of distances. Admins should be as fair and un-dramatic as they can possibly be. Nobody should be warned unless they need to be warned - full stop! And saying "deal with it" or "move on" just sounds so trite to someone who's got the shitty end of the stick. I just don't see why you can't re-asses - having seen a 'Not blocked', that is so obviously the decision for this case. I am a proud person and I just can't put up with this, or it's future potential, bearing in mind the edits to UK MP's I'm planning to make.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I was going to say the same thing: Not to worry about warnings. They're really just information, letting you know what the policies and guidelines are. You can also get the same information by reading some of the policies and guidelines from time to time, as is generally considered a good idea to do. Many people are caught by surprise not knowing about the canvassing guideline, for example. I thought there were four reverts. Maybe there were only three. Maybe it depends on exactly what definition of revert you use, or maybe I made a mistake (in which case I apologize). Anyway, that's in the past. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It’s the past for now (and you've behaved admirably), but things so quickly flare-up on WP. I am working on a unique data-table that I hope will be used on all UK MP's - I'm just still peed off I've got this warning over this - and what I've seen on WP in the past keeps playing on my mind - namely hasty and unbending admin decisions (not so much to me, but certainly to others). There seems to be this foolish toughness ethos with admins of not backing-down too - I just find it so irritating. I recently spent a few disappointing days on Citizendium, which did help me see the ways Wikipedia succeeds a lot more clearly - it's just frustrating to see where WP clearly fails (like the ‘human respect’ ethos that Citizendium makes a point of saying it does so much better). --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anybody's accusing you of not acting in good faith. It seems clear to me that you're trying to maintain and improve the article. Everything's OK. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
OK - as long as everything is equal I'm more than happy to move back to discussion.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dev null? Don't be so bloody rude!!

I have just found out want you meant by "Dev/null" - does that mean I can point you to WP:dick like the usual WP nitwit? It's merely made me feel a little worse about admins, especially after the haste with which you dealt with my case. Reading your link would hardly calm someone down would it? Remember why you are here, what's best for Wikipedia, to show basic respect and good faith is my own advice to you. And SLOW DOWN!! Admins are only useful if they concentrate on what they are doing, and actually maintain an underlying respect towards people. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you were offended. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Journalism scandals

If you want to go ahead and try merging List of United States journalism scandals and United States journalism scandals again you have my support. Redddogg (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you feel about keeping the renamed list a consice single-liner list, as it's been built?
I've been planning to try again - I've merely been waiting for support to arise: the problem is that the list/s are simply not widely watched. Your above comment now makes a 3:1 consensus for merging, from the 4 editors who have mentioned it - not including the IP address who recently commented against it on the longer list (that would make a current consensus of 3:2, which isn't really 'consensus' - and 3:1 can be argued isn't consensus either). As you know, the renaming approach was recommended in the AfD, but unfortunately by admins who don't want hands-on involvement with it. I've informed the Journalism project of the merge debate this time - something I should have done before I tried it. I don't think the project was informed about the AfD's too. I'm sure I read on an AfD comment that the old list was part of the project - but it it isn't, so I've added the new list, anyway. I don't know how well attended the project is - some are, some aren't. I'll wait to see what interest arises before performing a redirect again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wales

I am absenting myself from contributing from the Wales artical, as quite clearly acromonious editors, those that almost never ever contribute to or visit the Wales page, are now migrating here to enforce their own 'agenda'. The infobox border, the maps, the outline, the infobox picture, I know what shall follow. It is funny because NONE of these editors contribute to Wales... lol.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I been worrying a little since I saw the 'notice' for the British Isles debate. At some point I'll make a prose edit (I'm always juggling what I want to do and my time)- please comment when I do. Maybe you need to focus on another article if it's getting you down. I'll keep some colour in if it's removed - maybe a lighter red. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] colored debate

Here is the local for the debate for the use of a colored infor box border and title header. Please visit Template talk:Infobox Country on Wikipedia to provide arguments why countries should have these styalistic distinctions. Editor MJCdetroit may be sympathetic to our cause only if we reach a consensus. He has already reverted back the Wales page, which I have also reverted. If we provide a solid argument that adding colored borders and title headers does not jeoperdize the consistant display of information within the info box, prehaps we can build further consensus. If you know anyone who may share our views on this please have them also comment here. So far no one in the wider community other the MJCdetroit and Azra have voiced a position, the absence of this may work in our favor here. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC) My email address is dc_llewellyn@yahoo.com

See comment below. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moderation call

Hello Matt! Per the borders, I have left this notice on various bords and on other contributers I know here to widen the debate some. As you can see, if the consensus for the Wales community is that they do not wish to have a distincitive border and title header, I shall withdrawl my advocacy for it. But, I believe there will be others who do think it is a positive change, and have invited them to contribute to the debate

Cymru
WalesWales
Flag of Wales Coat of arms of Wales
Flag Coat of arms

Greetings Wales community! We need your Voice! We need mediation and impute from the wider community who regularily contribute to articals of Wales interest. At issue is the use of a distinctive border around the country info box, as well title bar. The issue seems to have become a crusade against Wales by certin editors, who have almost never contributed to and practically never visit (by their own admission) the Wales page. I do not tust the motives of the editor, who seems to be stalking my edits and reverting them purposefully. This editor even dismisses the colors of Wales red and green saying that Wales does not have any official colors! (quote: "I imagine that this use of "national colours" (of which Wales has none by custom or tradition)...", Unfortunatly, I must deal with these cyber bullying tactics if I am to contribute here. However, I implore the Wales commmunity to weigh in on the topic of allowing info box borders and title headers. Please submit views on Template talk:Infobox Country and talk:Wales. If the wider Wales community decides not to support a border and title header color in the colors of Wales then I will withdrawal from this position. However, I and other editors do feel it makes the Wales page far more distinctive. Sincerly, David Llewellyn♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll read up on this when I've got time, but I don't know how much support I can give - I've got a backlog of WP stuff I've started, and although I think finding the right coloured and styled border would be good, some of the other stuff is more demanding. I'll try and put in the odd comment. I fiddled around with it myself and managed to get a two coloured border, which gave it some relief (lighter on the outside)- I couldn't replicate it though. I don't have time to research the code. The more natural it looks on the page, the better the case, though there may always be opposition here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542

Thanks for your message. I appreciate that it must be frustrating when the article is fully-protected, but blocking for 3RR wouldn't solve the long-term disagreement: only discussion can help, and at least that's happening. It's only for a couple of days. As to your edit-protected request, I'm happy to make a change but I've left a question or two about the wording, as you'll see. Regards, BencherliteTalk 09:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"(ec) As you will have noticed, I have fully-protected the article on the Wrong Version to stop the edit-warring getting even more out of hand, lest 3RR blocks start getting handed out. Any other admin may feel free to revert to semi-protection (if still appropriate) if there is a measure of agreement here before the protection expires. BencherliteTalk 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)"
Sorry Bencherlite, but I have to be firm on this as I need Wikipedia's rules to make sense. As a lawyer I hope you understand this. 3RR keeps the page alive and deals with the warring editors. You don't have to immediately "block" anyone - you can strongly warn them on their Talk pages first, and you simply have not done this. The article must come first - so we don't lock it over basic 2-person edit wars in the info-box!. The 3RR process exists to deal with editors so the article can remain alive - why have you ignored this standard rule and locked the article? To encourage consensus? You cannot use a page-lock to force a consensus between 2 editors! What if you don't get the form of consensus you have said you still need to see? They are not obliged to find it, and sometimes people are happy with a lock - something I don't think you have considered at all (you quoted the foolish and provocative Wrong Version - but what about "The right version"? Apply some logic here). I had nothing to do with this edit war over the status of the Welsh language. Please remove the lock or I'll have to find an admin who will (which I think is an unfair position for me to be in) - I simply cannot see how it is justified at all. Wikipedia would simply grind to a halt if all admins did this!
If it is carried on, in lawyer-speak - can you supply me with a precedence on Wikipedia for this approach, as it seems clear to me that the lock is against Wikipedia principles. I also feel you have been too involved in the Talk by offering encouragement in directions. IMO, you should be dispassionate and rule-abiding - and not suddenly 'stop all play' for 3 days to try and broker a deal. You are not a school teacher either: just an admin. Unfortunately the appeasing "it's only for a couple of days" doesn't work in my life - I have had the time and inclination to edit now. And what if they (and you) do all this again? Is this how things are to go on? I'm wondering if this why the article has been so stagnant for so long. I have a life, a job and an article I want to edit - I'm really not happy here. The Wales article has been static for a long time and it is finally seeing some movement - "frustrating" is too weak a word for me now: I'm afraid the words are "puzzlement", "put out", "worried" and "increasingly annoyed". --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. My protection of Wales is in accordance with Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes. If you disagree, request unprotection at WP:RFPP.
  2. Linking to the Wrong Version is a frequent habit of many admins; it is not meant to be provocative, merely an attempt to head-off the frequent "Why did you protect that ersion instead of the right version?"
  3. The protection has brought in a number of other editors to the discussion. Suggestions are being made, and viewpoints expressed, rather than edit-warring and sniping in edit summaries. I do not think that it is worth lifting the protection early, otherwise the underlying problem will remain unresolved.
  4. I strongly disagree that I am taking sides in the dispute.
  5. I fully understand that protection of the article is frustrating for you. Again, if you can't wait until the protection expires, request unprotection at WP:RFPP.
Regards, BencherliteTalk 14:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'll ask for review at WP:AN, for transparency. BencherliteTalk 14:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_a_review_of_my_decision_to_protect_Wales. BencherliteTalk 14:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Many and often in the British Isles references

Matt Lewis. The references clearly say many, and clearly say often. These references are 100% suitable sources for WP. The text must reflect the references. If the references said "few" then the text should say "few". If the references said "a few lunatic wikipedia editors are the only people who object" then the article shouldn't mention objection at all because it would be excessive weight. The references say MANY and the references say OFTEN. Your repeated denials of this and removal of this from the article qualify as vandalism. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What if the reference said "Hitler was cool"? We must judge and weight the references. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If Cambridge and Oxford University Presses published histories of WWII by leading experts of the period that said "Hitler was cool", then I would (A) be very surprised and (B) give it some serious reflection. I haven't seen it happen and I don't expect to see it happen.
How about thinking about my point for a change? Don't call me a vandal, by the way. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Conversely Cambridge and Oxford University Presses published histories of the British Isles, by leading experts, have commented that the term "British Isles" is offensive/objectionable to many people in Ireland. So have many other reputable published authors. Of course, apparently you know better. If Matt Lewis is your real name then I suppose I could look on Amazon.com for books written by you on the topic of the British Isles and published by major publishers. How many would I find? I looked, NONE. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't question my name - you have NO reason to do that. My arguments including weight, exaggeration, the context of the account of the dissent (a historical account of dissent is just that) and asking for first-hand evidence to back it up - are simply solid and standard practice. When I look myself here I see a distinct lack of 'real life' evidence (and a paucity of quality academic evidence too, given the claim). You can shout "Oxford and Cambridge" all you like - you are studiously avoiding my points. This should not be an issue between us - you should have plenty of evidence for your "many". You need plenty of evidence in Wikipedia’s context for a word like this. Wikipedia should NOT slavishly follow the citations - it's the otherway around: Wikipedias rules come first.
And by the way, stop using people's Talk pages (including my own) to paint a picture of me as some kind of notorious troll - it's an underhand trick and you won't ever find me doing it. Pull back - read my points and keep searching for better evidence. And if you cannot find it why not question whether "many in Ireland" is the best wording here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The evidence found is already extremely good and more than sufficient for Wikipedia's standards. As you admit yourself, Wikipedia's rules come first and references from reputable scholarly sources (like - oh dear - Cambridge and Oxford) are regarded as the BEST sources for use in Wikipedia. Your search for something better is your problem. If you disagree with the sources then take it up with them. If you think that Wikipedia shouldn't regard Cambridge and Oxford published texts as solid references then take it up with the board of Wikipedia. Meantime your repeated removal of supported and referenced text is invalid and illustrates your own bias and arrogance. You believe you know better than the sources. If you are right, fine, but get your view published and then it'll be worth talking about. Meantime your view has as much weight in Wikipedia (i.e. practically none) as the view of any other unpublished partisan. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Watch 3rr. Also, apart from reverting totally supported text, you are deleting references again. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction from wotapalaver...Matt Lewis didn't seem to delete the reference...my mistake. He just reverted the text that is supported by the reference.Wotapalaver (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The article was locked for a period and we were told to discuss future changes here. You are just carrying on with the same non-consenesus changes - you can't bully me about 3RR. You and some 'handy' IP addresses are pushing it, not me.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Matt Lewis, you may have missed it, but there was discussion, including on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. The sources I'm trying to use are reliable. As for 3RR, i can't bully anyone, I'm not an admin. Meantime, if you're accusing me of using some "handy" IP addresses in some sockpuppet form, please make the accusation formal or withdraw it. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dusticomplain/compliment 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gozitancrabz (heading changed as user banned).

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gozitancrabz (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

When am I supposed to have done that, and who are you? You have neither shown any evidence nor signed! Honestly! (Oh you've signed now(!) - can you perhaps show me the problem?--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You did it here, where you edited my own comments of the quotes that I had left, making it appear I was arguing for the other side. I have assumed good faith, which is why I only gave you a level 2 warning, so do not worry about it, but if you repeat it again, another, higher level warning may be given (not neccessarily by me), and eventually, a block. As it stands, you are in no trouble, but as policy, I must give you a warning to inform you. I was considering a level 1 warning, but you are not a new user; just don't do it again. :) cheers. oh, and by the way, i have moved some of the comments which you wrote which broke the manual of style, into a list on their own; i have not deleted those, but I have removed the comments where you reworded what I wrote. Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as ambiguous 'level 1' or 2 warnings in my book. If you want to complain, complain - but it sounds like a page corruption to me. Manual of style is just a guideline - you cannot edit my comments so they are in line with it, or your interpretation of it. It sound like you've been moving and editing my own comments - in which case I'll revert them back to where they were, and correct the whatever mistake I may have made. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not revert again; you have modified my comments - something which you are not allowed to do. Revert again and not only will I give you another warning and talk to an admin about a temporary block, but I shall go to the ANI and report a revert war. Please stop now. Gozitancrabz (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion has been reverted. I shall reorder the points again for you, but i will NOT accept the page to be reverted, as this puts in all the places where you have modified the actual wording, content, and meaning of what I wrote. Gozitancrabz (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are now back in, although indented from mine to avoid confusion. Please stick to the MOS with regards to this next time. Also, do NOT modify what people have written again. You say there is nothing referencing our claims - go check the last few comments under the section; Wikipeire has explained where in the source the UN states it, and there are some other sources given by me too, quoted from higher up the page on another discussion. And also, I don't have an oppinion either way on how "offended" you are. This is wikipedia, a place for facts, not for propaganda. Gozitancrabz (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wales as a country is propaganda? - you really are building a poor picture of yourself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've posted this comment on your talk page (I may as well copy it here):

I've had to revert your edits to my comments - sorry, but I've done you favour - you'll get in trouble moving other editors comments like that. Many people insert comments in between bullet points (I've had it done to me by Wikipedias so-called one-time "number 2" once!) MOS may not recommend it - but MOS is a guideline, not a licence to re-edit another editor. In my opinion no list of bullets like your should just be allowed to stand without point-by-point questions asked! You laid on a totally misleading picture. Please tell me where the mistake you spoke of lies, so I can help to rectify it. I don't have the time to pick apart all the edits you made to my text.

You also have to understand too that your assertion that Wales is a Principality and not a real country is offensive to me, and millions of others of my Welsh countrymen! (and pretty much almost everyone else I'm sure). The 'Principality' issue is a separate one to Wales being a constituent country of the United Kingdom (which is internationally the collective 'country' for obvious legal reasons). You keep saying you ahave a 'BBC reference' saying Wales isn't a country (although BBC Wales says it is every day!) - but I haven't seen it yet!

I will have to revert again if any of my text remains changed, as these are my comments - I don't think it counts as 3RR in my case if I'm just reinstating my Talk. Please tell me where the confusion issue is and we can deal with it, yes? I'll await to see what you do. Remember - don't fiddle with my text again without asking! And not too many 'inbetween' re-writes of your own I would suggest (for your credibility, you understand!) And whatever mishap arose - 'warning' me here (and others about me on the Talk page) that I have "modified the actual wording, content, and meaning of what (you) wrote" simply must be an exaggeration - I couldn't have accidentally done all that surely? (and you would be wise NOT to suggest anything corrupting I may have done was deliberate).

(I notice you have made a change - I'll have a look - but I can't waste hours dissecting it (I simply don;t have the time)- I'll have to simpy revert if I see my tTalk messed up.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It would count as a 3 revert rule violation, yes. Forcing the view that there is no "mixed oppinion" about Wales being a country is propaganda, when there are clearly now plently of official sources on the page which suggest it is not. And I will "fiddle with your text" as much as need be if ever you decide to reword mine again and in the process, change the entire meaning. I have replaced the parts that did not effect my writing, but where I was listing the quotes, at the top, you, for some reason, thought it OK to reword the titles of the quotes, and the commentary afterwards, and that is not even going into the fact that you "striked" certain parts of my text, which you are in no eligible position to do. Just accept your warning and learn for next time. Cheers. Gozitancrabz (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is 3RR if I'm replacing my own Talk. Do you understand what colons(:) signify? Maybe I missed signing a point and you are confused with the line indents? I can't make any sense of your "changed my heading" comments: it's a bloody mess now though! The strikes were through clear misrepresentations - you are simply making misrepresenting statements (I'm putting it politely) - and that is totally wrong of you (just unstrike them and leave my text alone). In fact, I've not encountered another editor quite like you: you keep saying "I'm tired of repeating that x has been proved to be y" without showing any proof that x=y at all. And over the existence of a country too! You have not one shred of evidence saying that Wales is not a country - but it's the continual and inciting line you just keep repeating. You must expect a firm response if you go about like this!--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are replacing my talk with your "modifed version" that still breaks it. And have you even bothered checking the latest source additions to the section? two very official ones, which are not disputable, and that is in addition to the already existing BBC ones we have given. Goodnight. Adios! Gozitancrabz (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Two of them prove nothing and one (which seems to) you have suddenly lucked on - so I'm going to give it a go!
Anyway - adios! glad your gone. the UN Principality-over-country quote (literally the ONLY EXAMPLE you've come across after all the protracted debate) does not mean Wales is not a country: it just has Wales listed under 'Principality' rather than 'country'. There is debate on whether a Principality is a country too - and Wales is clear proof that it can be. I'm looking for a clear UN quote about this. So don't get too excited, eh?
Also - you have removed at least one paragraph of mine in all your smokescreen edits (one where I pointed out an embarrassing mistake of yours - over the "BBC one" you mention above). Hmmm - now shall I report you? You certainly deserve it. It's the not the thing to do you see pal, removing people comments from Talk pages. (esp after pretending someone else has done it to clear the way - and I have found NO evidence of me making any error at all!!!) You have lucked on the UN quote. And honestly - were would you be without it - the way you have been behaving? No wonder you are suddenly so cocky! I bet you are jumping around your bedroom! I grew up in the country in question though - so will find my best gritty smile and persevere. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
oh, are you denying that you edited my comments? And if I removed one of your comments, I appologize, and by all means, put it back (presuming you are not talking about the point where you modified my comment), and haha, no, you are not able to "report" me for that, as I made an error while trying to correct a far greater offence that you made. Report by all means if you want. I can give you the link if you want, but I can assure you things will not swing your way. Oh, and another point, please read this before you next leave a comment to me. :) Cheers. Oh, and by the way, just to let you know, I am now discussing inviting the mediation cable onto the Wales article because you are refusing to accept the UN quote, amongst others. Regards. Gozitancrabz (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you just say "haha"? I've spent a number of hours with you now and I'm seriously questioning my wisdom. You have never shown me what offense I originally made in Talk that 'forced you' to go on an totally non-policy reverting/moving/edit/revision spree - I can see none. I've started a new section on the UN quote - we can deal with it there. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

Just thought I'd give you a heads up Matt. Take a look at the Scotland talk page under the heading: abitrary break. You will see that a certain editor is being accused of sockpupperty. And don't worry and if you don't mind me saying, keep calm.You have all the facts in your favour. --Jack forbes (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm taking a break actually. Don't know how long - I've actually let myself get pretty wound up (stupid I know, and pretty obvious too - I appreciate your suggestion to keep calm) and I've let a few things go 'off-line' (not least wasting my own free time arguing the existence of my own country! It's the repetition that's got to me!) You are right - the facts are obviously with us. I'm just aware that internationally Wales isn;t all that well known. I'll have a peek at Scotland before I sign off, and come back refreshed I'm sure.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Gozitancrabz personal headings

And yes, I have visited Wales a lot with my parents thanks very much. It was a pretty region; shame about the weather Gozitancrabz (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Troll. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt we could all be feeding a troll so I suggest we back off a bit and let them shoot themselves (unless they reverse out evidence). See here Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iamandrewrice (2nd) --Snowded (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Gozitancrabz has been banned as a sock of the banned sock user Iamandrewrice. Looks like I took my short break at the right time - we were simply being given the runaround, and everything I wrote probably just made things worse. The other one, Wikipeire, has been blocked for socks himself, so gets no respect from me: he/she could be anyone. The only issue now on this matter is whether we revise where we have "Principality". I favour simply keeping it in the last parag, which has the room to place it in it's historical context and mention the Prince of Wales too. It's a last parag thing, not a first parag one. It needs the room to be qualified too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Matt, theres no reason not to mention principality but certainly not in the first paragraph. As a Scot maybe thats why I feel I had to back you up, If you have discussions on the same subject give me a shout! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it would ever go quite like that again, but thanks. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The truth always comes out Matt. Remember that! --Jack forbes (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as people are on the case! It's certainly something I will be more diligent about. Nothing wrong with AGF in comments, and checking peoples history too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

You and the IP address have stitched me up, Watapalava: you are supposed to warn me BEFORE HAND too. I'm not happy with you - this is underhand.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR discussion of British Isles

Hello Matt Lewis. You are one of the editors named in the plan I have proposed on the 3RR board for ending the edit war on British Isles. For details see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Matt Lewis reported by User:Wotapalaver .28Result: .29. You are welcome to add your own opinion there. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If you continue to break the rules like above and being abusive to me I may have to get an adminstrator involved. You've been warned.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 22:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You have trolled me on Wales while using a sock - and have been caught red handed doing so. It simply is impossible for me to AGF. My suggestion to you is to be careful yourself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not troll you while using a sock. Honestly calm down. I never came across you until the Wales principality thing. That went to mediation. I don't know where you are getting this trolling thing. Frankly you're letting yourself down in your own proposal by making all these outlandish and crazy accusations instead of thinking about improving articles.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 22:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
As User:Melvo you edited a paragraph on the Welsh Assembly you pointlessly faught with me on (to demote my country - no other reason). You deleted the 72 hour block details from your Talk page which would have saved me a lot of my valuable time arguing with you if I saw them (as I should have). Looking at your history I am 100% certain you are yourself a sock of another account (as you started life confidently claiming Scotland was not a country). I would like to change that paragraph in Wales but I know from experience that you will fight it - so I have left it for the time being. You worked closely with the sock of user:Gozitancrabz to troll over Welsh 'country' status - though you changed your tune after user:Gozitancrabz was found out to be an illegal account of a banned user. You now claim to support Scottish and Welsh independence! When I frustratedly asked you once if you had a problem with Wales you typically replied "I have absolutely nothing against the UK."! In short I am unsettled with you around. After the time I wasted in the Wales fiasco there is no way I am AGF'ing with a clear sockpuppet - no way. If I was 99% certain I would - but not 100% certain - it's asking too much. It's just a matter of time before you are discovered. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Who is this other user? There are lots of people who don't think Scotland is a country. I will personally get the user to say thats not the case so you can calm down on this issue. I actually had the Scottish independence userbox for a good few months. I added the Wales one recently I admit. I think you see me as some British Unionist. I am an Irish Republican so you couldn't be further from the truth. In that circumstance you said 'problem with your country.' Me saying UK was perfectly accurate. You didn't indicate constituent country. As you see in Talk:British Isles your opinion isn't the only one out there. If I feel in my opinion the Welsh article needs improving then I will do so. I am not trolling you or some other bad faith thing. WikipÉIRE\(caint) 23:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Look at your User:Wikipéire history (your first and second edits!) I know you lose track of yourself as in Wales you stupidly referred to your User:Melvo edit as your own! As for the UK comment - nice try, that's almost sweet. I could find other examples but won't bother. I'd lay low if I were you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I didn't mention any edit. I am talking about the discussion on the talk page. You're getting yourself confused now with all your paranoia. ;) I won't be laying low - I'm going to try and improve the accuracy of articles as I always will.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 00:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That's funny kiddo, because you started this little discussion by "warning" me with a threat of admin involvement! I thought I would have transgressed your warning by now, surely? Calling you a 100% sock? Funny how I didn't feel too threatened isn't it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually you saying 'troll' on my talk page started this. I didn't talk to an admin as I feel you embarrassing yourself on the 'BI' talk page was enough punishment as it is. Oíche mhaith.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 00:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just to to warn you about the 3rr rule on the wales article.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 11:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt should be blocked for 24 hours. 78.19.213.117 (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never had so many IP's interested in me! --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm straight! LOL 78.19.213.117 (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You are not quite straight and narrow though. You seem pretty interested in me in fact! And there's me thinking you're trolling.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute with Wikipéire

Although I disagree with Wikipéire's edits to Wales, it's Wikipedia policy not to make personal attacks against other users. You can slag off the edits as much as you want, but not the editor or it may lead to a block on you editing. I'm just advising you before an administrator intervenes. Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, but I can't be trolled by this guy after the time he wasted of mine (especially by deleting the Talk section on his 72 hour ban for using User:Melvo - that really pissed me off, as I would and should have known about it earlier). He wars up to 3RR, so I'm showing him I where I stand. I'm convinced his ID is a sock too, and there a suspicious IP around me at the moment as well. If he leaves me alone, I'll leave him alone - as I'm sure people are on his case. Of course if an admin warns me I'll have to shut up - but none yet has.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the IP position is suspicious and that Wikipeire has behaved badly. He is an aggressive editor, happy to engage in edit wars, asserts positions based on a wider political agenda and does not deal with sources. However I think he is a different proposition from our other proven sock puppet, and will at the end attempt to reach agreement. However - and this is a fellow Welshman and sinner in this respect speaking :-) - I think there is a danger of being a bit too passionate in the responses and of making some of these disputes look like a "plague on both their houses" for an incoming administrator. I got sucked into it a couple of times and it was a mistake. I reversed his deletion of the 72 hour ban and posted an objection to his continued deletion by the way. However I think the future strategy should be to politely reject, ask questions and/or report activity. There are several administrators who watch this site and I think we can be confident they would intervene. --Snowded (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
He's changes according to how warm it gets for him: it's not really compromise - sometimes he u-turns when things are hot. My plan now is to ignore him - which isn't easy. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi either stop harrassing me on pages I edit or I will be forced to report you here WP:Wikiquette alerts. Snowded has already warned you about this. Thank you.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 11:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Snowded? The editor who tried (unsuccessfully) to stop you deleting your sock puppet ban from your Talk page? Where has he warned me? I think you mean "advised". I'm trying to avoid you, but I don't like you calling other people a "troll" - they should know not to waste their time with you like I did. How come the only edits you have been making lately are on the only two pages I have been editing lately? Why did you recently go up to 3RR on a Welsh Assembly edit in Wales you know nothing about? Because I was editing it? Your supposed 'concensus' goes back to your sock use with User:Melvo. You have proved that you haven't even read the Introduction to Wales properly. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Welshleprechaun also warned you too. I am editing far more pages than you are doing mostly on Irish topics. Please stop this act where you think I'm doing something because of you. I went up to 3rr as user Pondle also agreed that the line made no sense. I then gave you a couple days to change it (I said so on the talk page) yet you did nothing. So I removed it. Now I see you are trying to compromise with Pondle on what the line says. (All of a sudden). Of course you refused to that with me because of your crazy antics. The consensus has only got to with me you and Pondle no one else. Its 2 editors against 1. I know enough about the Welsh Assembly to know that your sentence is completely misleading and factual wrong. That is all.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 12:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Warned? This is clear trolling. You ignored the comment I gave to Pondle when you 3RR'd - so it is a lie to say I am talking to him "all of a sudden" (and it's not a compromise - it's a development of a paragraph you removed). I'm now discussing it on my Talk page purely to keep away from you. I also left that paragraph for a number of days TO KEEP AWAY FROM YOU, as you 3RR, and you were wasting peoples time elsewhere in the most outrageous debate I've ever been in (Did you ever read through the now-banned User:Gozitancrabz and your souces which I tried to make light of in your Mediation page here)? Fortunately your partner was found to be a banned user.
Both User:Snowded and User:Welshleprechaun are highly critical of you (as you well know). Your are just trying to leave a 'better' trail here, as usual. If you call other people "trolls" and I comment on you - then you don't have much of a leg to stand on - especially in an article I am editing. I'm not going to let others waste time with you like I did (yes - I resent your Wales-belittling "anthem/language/country" debates big time). You have now even said I'm "stalking" you - that is just ludicrous - you came straight from Wales to here (and for a period was editing nowhere else than here and Wales). Why did you 3RR with me after using a sock on me in the same parag? (the sock you started the "Welsh is not a Official language" debate with) - and wasting all that time telling with me my country isn't really a country? I've told you how upset I am - if you had any sense at all you would keep away from me, rather than continue to wind me up. Where are these IP's from too? If you don't like me being "paranoid" (as you say) you shouldn't have done the stupid things you've done. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[He did warn you]. How is that trolling? It is a compromise I proposed a development of the paragraph [right here] yet you ignored it. So yes it is sudden that you now agree to change what the sentence says. Yes those editors are critical of me, they disagree with some of my logic but thats bound to happen with editors. Howver he does say he will at the end attempt to reach agreement. You seem to ignore that fact about me. I am looking to improve articles wuth something that everyone's happy with. I've had agreement on the anthem and language. If your upset that what you thought is not fact then stop taking it out on me. I am not winding you up, you are winding up yourself. If you can provide anything conclusive on an incident where I ignored the article debate and went on to annoy you then point it out. I can do so on you. It is you bothering me. The debate about Wales not being a country is legitimate. Legally its not a country. However the time for that debate isn't now, that debate is over for now. How about I give you my ip address? You can compare it to the others so you can get this paranoia thing over and done with. That way you can stop your abuse.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 14:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Your "[right here]" link is full of your own mistakes, and even refers to the sock-puppet you used (the "Citation needed" which I filled)! I am under no obligation to re-write something to suite someone who can't even properly read the sentence he is commenting on! You focused on the EU and tried to remove it without any time or thought of what the sentence actually said about business ties - simply to belittle my legally sound country for your own political agenda. You are everything I hate about Wikipedia.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The sources don't match what you are saying. You can't read that yourself. That source is not legal. It could be viewed as propoganda. The UN or EU which I gave are legal sources. The sentence needs to be re done. If you can't agree with Pondle then it will have to go to mediation. You hate me? I don't like you myself. You have insulted me on numerous occasions. I didn't join Wikipedia to get abuse from a 37 year old in a mid life crisis letting steam out the only way he knows how. The sooner you stop making this personal and the more you look at the points being raised the better it'll be for the articles in question.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 15:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
OK Wikipiere - Fuck off from me you silly twat. The UN does not say Wales is not a country, nor does the EU (they look at the wider UK - a collective of constituent countries!!)- the UK (and everyone else out of your narrow matgin: historians, politicians, people) all clearly say that Wales IS and always was a country. You have stolen hours from me on this - you are a totally selfish thief. You will say it isn't - though you know how much that offends me having grown up in the country in question. You make me sound like some kind of radical to say something we have all grown up with - that is digusting of you in every way. You are a little shit.
Pondle and I have no "issues" at all over the EU - we are merely two normal editors in discussion (which I think is slow as he doesn't edit all that regularly). You don't need to threaten me with another mediation about it. Now is saying "fuck off" to you enough now? My problem is you are a sock who will troll me and threaten me, but never actually complain like you keep saying you will. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Right.............Clearly you are on the edge so to end all this. While editing articles: 1. I don't make a personal comment/insult about you. 2. You don't make a personal comment/insult about me. 3. We shall avoid each others talk pages from now on unless absolutely necessary. 4. In the event we are editing the same page. We must let other editors decide arguments between us if we come into disagreement again. This can be done by the two of us presenting sources without personally engaging with each other. We must pretty much ignore each other and just give out points as if the other person isn't there. If those are kept then there shouldn't be a problem. You have the power to end this disagreement. I will now go out of my way to avoid you (not that I ever attempted to get in your way for some reason) . I consider this over. It is up to you. However any more insults and the like will be seen as an act of trolling and not about editing articles so I will indeed have to do something about it then. Fin.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Do you know what? I had just written the following paragraph. You are an utter troll, but I'm going to post it anyway: you better adhere to it you little horrible little shite (a legal term in my eyes for what you are). I've only seen you make agreement when the User:Gozitancrabz was found to be a banned user. The other 'compromise' you used your Melvo sock (with an IP and Gozitancrabz) to achieve - and we all resent it, Snowded included. Theses are last-ditch "compromises" (that combine with the threat of your edit warring, and you having caused a locked article too) - they afford you absolutely nothing. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Note to whoever may be interested: I have just avoided two edits in a row that I could easily have made: one to an edit which Wikipeire has made - wiping mention of the words British Isles off the new Britain and Ireland article (and I'd like to amend to include the term in the Introducton, rather than a footnote at the bottom of the page saying "The geo-political area sometimes known as The British Isles"), and the other, just before he made it, in Wales - which someone else who wants to try it will probably do (and which I think Wikipeire is likely not to like). I am saying this as he's got right on my nerves, and I'm planning to take dramatic measure to keep out of his direct path (and keep him from mine). I will continue to contribute to the same articles though (frankly, I was there first) - and I advise him to think twice about dealing unadvisedly with my own comments/edits.
I am trying to work towards merging the British Isles naming dispute fork into British Isles to benefit Wikipedia (ie. to create an objective view of the subject, rather than a politically motivated slant on, or removal of it). I'll try and do it without touching the new Britain and Ireland article, simply to keep from the possibility of warring with him. I trust in return he will start to show me some respect and try and keep out of my way. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pondle - on the EU parag in Wales Intro

Hi. I'm busy for the moment, but will try and explain myself again here after lunch. (in an hour and a half or so). I didn't want to go through it again in Wales Talk right now - hope you don't mind me doing it here. You might want to put your views down first? The parag isn't finished by any means. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt, I think the line in the intro about Wales having more 'independent' relations with the European Union since devolution is misleading - foreign policy remains a reserved matter outside the Assembly's competence. Hence the Concordat on Co-ordination of European Union Policy Issues stating that "relations with the European Union are the responsibility of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom, as Member State."[1] Another Concordat on International Relations states that "The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs... has overall responsibility for concluding treaties and other international agreements on behalf of the United Kingdom, ensuring compliance with the United Kingdom’s EU and other international obligations".[2] It's also important to note that Wales isn't independently represented on any of the key European bodies, e.g. the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission or the European Court of Justice. The only changes that I can see occuring since devolution is WAG representation on the United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the EU (UKRep),[3] and Wales being represented on the EU's Committee of the Regions and Economic and Social Committee - although these just seem to involve local councillors[4] I tried to clarify the matter by editing the Politics of Wales article accordingly. Pondle (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, and not being party to removing the text - this is clearly about getting the paragraph right. My intention in writing it was to show how the Assembly benefits Wales by being a place that important foreign bodies can liaise directly with (in a nutshell). The question is - has the EU been in any way liaising directly with the Assembly (and vice versa) to a greater extent than it directly did with the Welsh Office (assuming that it did then, and does now)?
RE the Concordat parag: As all foreign policy issues are non-devolved, relations with the European Union are the responsibility of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom, as Member State. However, the UK Government wishes to involve the Assembly Cabinet as directly and fully as possible in decision making on EU matters which touch on devolved areas (including non-devolved matters which impact on devolved areas and non-devolved matters which will have a distinctive impact of importance to Wales). In general, it is expected that consultation, the exchange of information and the conventions on notifications to EU bodies will continue in similar circumstances to the arrangements in place prior to devolution.
The line you pointed out: "relations with the European Union are the responsibility of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom, as Member State" deals with "responsibiliy" in a certain sense, imo: it is basically saying that the buck has to lie with the UK as the member state, and the wider important decisions are made centrally: it doesn't say to me that the WA and EU do not work together.
I think the Intro needs to cover where Wales stands re the EU whatever that entails - it could a good picture of what Wales means over all. We could mention the EU Office in Wales (set up 1976) [5], the WA EU Office in Brussels [[6]] (which is part of the European and External Affairs Division, and the fact that in Wales people vote to elect both AMs and MPs (as part of the general Assembly info). I think we can get it right in a reasonably short parag.
Other links: The Welsh European Funding Office - allows businesses to access grants online, Would this go via Brussels/Wales?,
To allay concerns that Wales might be seen as being individually represented on the "key bodies" we could cover this with something like: "Although the key European bodies, such as the European Council, are represented by the UK (as the EU member state), Wales...". --Matt Lewis (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matt,
  • The EU office in Wales isn't really a big deal. Yes, it's something that the devolved administrations have that the English regions don't, but it only has 5 staff - one is a PA, four are just press/information officers. Its main duty is to keep the Welsh public informed about the EU - they have no substantive policy role.[7]
  • WEFO manages the European Structural Funds programme in Wales - it's now a part of WAG rather than a separate quango.[8] The Welsh Office managed structural funds in Wales before 1999, so there's not really been much change in management arrangements since devolution[9]. The biggest recent change is that from 2000 onwards, West Wales and the Valleys has qualified for Objective 1 funds [10] The UK retains a common policy position on structural funds [11]. However, there are occasions when WAG makes representations direct to the European Commission [12]
  • Yes, there is the WAG EU office - it is "part of the UKRep family" but accountable to the Assembly.[13] It's worth a mention somewhere - I'm not convinced that it's important enough for the Intro though.
  • The only intergovernmental links that the External Affairs division at WAG has delivered seem to be "Memoranda of Understanding with Catalunya, Brittany, New South Wales, Chubut (Patagonia), Baden-Wurttemberg, Silesia (Poland), Latvia, and Chongqing (China)" (i.e. links with other sub-national regions). Aside from that they organise visits etc. [14] Pondle (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Idea for compromise - how does this grab you? Bit long-winded but I think it would meet both our requirements. "Wales is a constituency of the European Parliament. Relations between Wales and the European Union are conducted through the UK Government as UK foreign policy is a reserved matter. However, Welsh Assembly Government ministers and officials may participate in EU Council meetings as part of the British delegation, and can interact directly with the European Commission."[15] Pondle (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Josef Melan

Since you are member of WikiProject Biography, can you please assess the article for this WikiProject? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can label it Start. Do you want a comment too? --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Hello Matt, I have explained the change I made on the Wales infobx at the talk page. --Jack forbes (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Matt, As I've explained to Snowdon I have changed the infobox again. If you would like to check it again I would appreciate it. I did not put the colons in but as I feel I'm already flying by the skin of my teeth I thougt maybe someone else could put them in. Thanks. --Jack forbes (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constituent country or country

Hi, I don't want change just for changes sake. I really believe the change to country would improve the article. It's very similar to the argument you had with the sockpuppet and the other editor I won't mention. Their argument was that Principality should be used as soon as possible in the first paragraph. You, quite rightly, told them that principality was very rarely if at all used in Wales. This is the exact same argument I have for using country rather than constituent country in the first paragraph. As I said on the talk page, who says, Wales, it's a beautiful constituent country! I hope you now understand the reasoning behind my proposal. --Jack forbes (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Constituent country for all 4 UK sub-divisions. But alas, my hopes of consistancy on those articles, have evaporated. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, even for NI, which is clearly a created country in my eyes. I wouldn't involve myself on either side of an edit-exchange on this though - as long as the full-length title of the UK is kept (which I favour for the UK country articles, but wouldn't presume to change on any of the others). I'm still not sure of the reasoning, unless the word 'constituent' bothers them on a nationalist level. Ultimately though this edit makes little odds, unless it leads to an edit war - which with Wales can mean the article getting locked. I might be advised to go to lastminute.com if that happened - to somewhere very relaxing..--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Thanks for your message. I agree it does look a little like there may be some sockpuppetry at work, particularly given the similarity of the areas of editing, but as there's very little cross-over between the accounts - only on Wales - and no disruption, no good-hand/bad-hand, no consensus rigging, etc. at this stage, I'm not sure that there'd automatically be a breach of policy.

In terms of IPs, I think it's pretty clear that Wikipeire predominently edits from the 78.16.xx.xx range - this edit and this edit to his talk page are pretty telling, and IPs from the same range crop up on Editors a few times, as well as T in the Park. The other IPs I'm not so sure about.

I'll drop him a quick note on his talk page. The public face of GBT/C 12:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes - time is pretty much of a luxury at the moment. I think that filing a checkuser on Wikipeire, Petitspois and the most obvious IPs is probably a sensible move, given that he has denied that it's him. Having looked at all the edits, I think it's probably pretty likely that there is more untoward going on than I first thought. The public face of GBT/C 11:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You might be right here

But I'm not seeing it. All of the edits were unsourced (and some were badly written). I can't make heads or tails of what they were doing. Things like messing up the references and making changes that changed the point of the discussion, indicates that this person needs a lot of guidance. This editor needs more than just come to the discussion page, but needs to read a bunch of suggestions about writing here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - but we can get a better idea about someone in Talk (or an idea even). I didn't feel I was encouraging a 'troll'. I suspect that some people who don't (and possible can't) sign in, don't actually realise that they can use discussion. Maybe some need encouragement too. The problem with all the WP policy/guidelines (which i'm a fan of) of course is that some people may not have the time to go through them. Editing is clearly the easiest thing to do for some people. I thought some of the edits look they could be well-informed (though I'm no expert on Biochemical characteristics as you know!) - at least we can check up now on what he/she's done. Also- I've always had the idea that actual experts on AD are probably quite scarce - there is always a small chance the IP could be one - just without any idea of (or possibly even much respect of) WP.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely do not think this person is a troll, probably just inexperienced. It read like original research is all. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could point the "compare pages" diff out in Talk in case anyone missed it? There could be a few good things in there people have missed. I briefly looked at a ref (where we had 1% - but I think the ref actually mentioned 10% in some way). He changed it to 5 to 10% if I remember. I can't look at it right now I'm too involved somewhere else!--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

May I just politely remind you about the 3 revert rule before you get to involved into an editing war out of the heat of the moment. Don't want anyone to fall afoul of it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't be 3RRing, but the guy's a bona-fide multi-sockusing troll (trolling to me at least - and he's on his last legs now re socks) so I'm hoping some others will like my considered edit and put it back in. He hangs over my head and has rubbish reasons for reverting me. I'm as entitled as anyone else to contribute to the debate (and I have a lot over the months, before he has certainly).--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I am blocking your for a period of 24 hours under WP:3RR. It seems from your past history on this topic that you are playing the system by continually reverting and not going over the three reverts, which is against the spirit of the rule. You have been warned about revert wars several times in the past, and you were warned on this one but continued reverting even after discussion was opened and engaged in on the edit page. Canterbury Tail talk 19:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong about "my past history" - please look more into it. I'm sure I've had 'warnings' after single edits from opposers, and IP's and trolls too - but should they count? I am not "playing the system" at all: I just can't tell you how much you are wrong there. Wikipedia needs genuinely fair playing people, and sometimes you have to stand your ground in life against those who genuinely are "playing the system". I am an honest editor and an honest man.
On the earlier 3RR on British Isles you refer too I was caught out by IP socks (I strongly believe of User:Wikipéire), and I said I would keep away and have done until now - where he has reverted me as a clear act of trolling as far as I'm concerned (but you will have to see our history for that). If you want to know about him read this. Can you confirm to me that Wikipeire is not trolling and not still using sockspuppets like his still-alive User:petitpois, and all those suspicious British Isles IP's? I am talking to an admin about it, but will put up a checkuser request myself when I am unblocked. It is all it will take I assure you.
I am someone who uses Talk I expect more than I edit. I was only ever admin-warned once before the IP-induced British Isles 3RR - and I was told it was not a "real warning"! The admin told me just to ignore it when I complained to him (it was for prematurely accusing someone else of 3RR - ironically it was 3, like now, and not 4). I'll have to speak to him about it when I am unblocked - I have always worried it is a red mark against me on some kind of admin-available list. In my own opinion, I've never done anything to warrant a sustained warning other than to lose my temper with Wikipeire's behaviour and swearing foully at him, which ironically I never got a warning for at all (although considering the language I used I probably deserved one). At the end of the day, socks and sock-IPs simply must be dealt with.
Also (irrelevant I know) - I thought I made a very good and considered edit, and it wasn't properly addressed at all!--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
PS. "continually reverting and not going over the three reverts"? I think it's only fair for you to show me the diffs of me doing that. I don't think I've done that other than with the IP situation that went to 3RR - I've certainly not done it in the past with any intent. After the 3RR I only edited the once to put a 'merge' tag in a week or so ago, and once again earler today to replace it when it was removed to early, imo. Wikipeire removed it again after I replaced it, incidentally. Often his edits over periods are simply reversals of mine. My accusations of trolling and sock-puppetry are not merely wounded pride! --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd recommend Matt be given another chance & that those IP addresses be investigated. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks GoodDay, I appreciate that. If I had any sense I'd have waited on the admin dealing with him - but it seemed to lose momentum. I didn't expect him to push me too far on British Isles (and we both stopped) - but I wanted people to see the edit (and he clearly didn't) so I went for a third shot. Problem with the Talk page is that everything seems to rapidly scroll out of view - when I comment on what's now 'higher up' (as I have done with suggestions for the article) it rarely gets a reply as people focus on the bottom all the time. I've been to Irish pubs in Wales with less prattle going on. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it further, and GoodDay's good word I've removed your block. I'll check the edits again. Canterbury Tail talk 21:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Congradulations, Matt. You've been given another chance. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well! I was just giving you a 'ps' - I think I'll post it anyway:
PS. It may be another chance - but both incidents are clearly linked re the IP / user socking! The first was a cross-issue problem too (which doubled it in a sense, as they weren't related), and neither went to the full amount of edits (which is not the issue, esp with this article I know).
It's so hard to make progress with an article/intro/fork format like this: I just wish it was a standard article which we could build up properly. The problem is that some people want to put huge weight into the British Isles intro - as the 'dispute' fork contains all the detail and not the BI article itself! But they are getting the best of both worlds - and the combined weight of the two is outrageously 'undue'. They are also using Britain and Ireland now. It’s such a bad time for this, and seeing it is not what I signed up to Wikipedia at all. They have more space on Wikipedia to put their case than any other place in the world would provide for them, yet they want to exaggerate their claims and try and force out an old and well-used term. It's just not on. The overriding atmosphere in Ireland is for peace, and I've encountered some horribly anti-British sentiment on WP in the past 6 months - from people who clearly feel it is OK to do it, due to history. Can I be anti-Jewish due to Palestine? Palestine, at least, is a current problem - Ireland is in a new state. Some people find it hard to pull back. I object to using history texts (esp an account of dissent throughout history) to prove that something is the view today. The Folens example, and the general media usage of the term just show me it isn't the heavy deal they want to convince the World that it is. The introduction now exaggerates the intention of the Irish gov (which WP should never ever do) and the weight, relevancy and amount of history texts in the refs (refs which are more extended and 'spelled out' than other refs I've seen on Wikipedia). I made a decent compromising edit, but it wasn't given a chance. One thing is for sure - it is Wikipedia's flawed IP system that has ultimately lead me to being blocked, even more than my frustration over Wikipeire. It is crazy how people can be allowed to edit with them. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the block, by the way. I've been preparing a big (and promised) speech for Talk on the weight of the Intro refs - I think I'd be wise to complete it before making any edits again! --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

These days, I rarely get involved with the content of the British Isles article. Actually, since my experience at Scotland weeks ago (concerning that article's map), I've tried to be less involved in United Kingdom & Republic of Ireland articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock date

Hi Canterbury Tail- Wikipedia won't let me edit, and keeps giving me the exact time for the current 'unblock date'! eg "This block has been set to expire: 23:25, May 13, 2008."!

Hi Matt. Your block log says you're not blocked at present. What message is coming up? BencherliteTalk 23:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia." It has a 'Secure log in' (even though I am logged in - I've tried it anyway and it just logs me in again). It looks like it's a 'standard' block page - it has sections like "What does this mean?" which you can Show. It keeps giving the exact time as the expiry date! Hang on - it now says "This block has been set to expire: 19:36, May 14, 2008. Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. Most likely your computer is on a shared network with other people.". I think that is the original expiry time, before it was lifted. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Try reading this set of instructions: {{Autoblock}} BencherliteTalk 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi - the sections did not quite correspond to the instructions, but the copying the above code seemed the only option available. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of [redacted] lifted or expired.

Request handled by: BencherliteTalk 00:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Try now. BencherliteTalk 00:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great - I can edit. Sorry if I missed any obvious instructions - it's getting late. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Good, glad that's sorted. Happy editing, and good night. BencherliteTalk 00:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. I suspect I may have kept you up a bit at this hour, so thanks again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I did something else whilst I was waiting, so my time was being used "productively" (if WP contributions ever count as such...) BencherliteTalk 00:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the unblock should have worked. I don't know where I went wrong, I'll read up on it so it doesn't happen again in the future. Canterbury Tail talk 15:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's OK - I appreciate the fact you turned it around. I didn't expect it at all, mainly due to the complicated 3RR before. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr talk 06:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Matt, grateful thanks for reporting this one, and providing a nights entertainment watching the post ban defence. --Snowded (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I went to the admin who blocked Melvo, then straight to 'checkuser' as he was busy. The admin Alison got invovled (which I hoped would happen) and confirmed "most" of the IP's I listed. I doesn't look like he actually read her pretty conclusive response to my report, the way he complained! He did rather seem like an in-trouble school kid didn't he. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Does this mean, we won't be seeing those annoying 78.19.xx IP addresses anymore? I hope so. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've listed them here so we can easily cross-check in case he comes back. We can at least write them off 'head counts' (something he was rather too fond of I thought). People's viewpoints don't bother me (within reason) - it's cheating and rule-bending that really cheeses me off. Wikipedia has pretty simple rules - we just have to stick to them. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message - any problems of a similar nature in the future, drop me a line. GBT/C 07:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles Noticeboard

Hi Matt. What do you think of the idea of a British Isles noticeboard? As you know, there are several difficult issues surrounding the subject and a board may be a way of co-ordinating our efforts. I don't think there is such a board, and I'm not sure how one would be set up. CarterBar (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea. Can I mull it over tonight? I'm trying to focus on Wales at the minute (while doing the usual other things in between - not least getting distracted by articles such as Britain and Ireland!) I'll give it some serious thought. It may help 'solidify' the term on WP, though really we shouldn't need to do this when a term is so widely used. I don't know if you ever saw this page Talk:British_Isles/name_debate, but it shows you how bad thinks can get on the subject (if you didn't know already!). The question is - would a noticeboard lead to more of this, or (hopefully) less? I feel it favours some just to go on and on endlessly. British Isles has something like 16 archive pages. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Look forward to seeing your views on this, for or against. I'll look at the page you mention. Thanks. CarterBar (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the late reply - I've stayed up late to get it done (it's very important we do something I feel).
I've often found it hard to work out the differences between Wikiprojects, Portals and Noticeboards. It's interesting looking around. Portals give a lot of related information (I've just noticed Portal:Wales is a Featured Portal). They all have their own talk pages, Portals the least it seems. As a reference, the Wikiproject for Wales is WP:WALES, and the Noticeboard is WP:WWNB - they are probably not the best examples. I notice that British Isles is part of Portal:Geography and Portal:Europe, and that Geography is your thing.
Looking at all three, I think Portals probably want too-much 'front end' information (links etc) for us to maintain one, BI being so encompassing. Wikiprojects are full of useful management tools and resources etc, and have a join list - but will a BI one duplicate the others? (and the same for Portals). Noticeboards seem to be similar to Wikiprojects in some respects. They are broader, and suitable for suggestions etc, but could be more vulnerable to 'sabotage', so to speak (ie the typical BI scrolling waffle). There is also WP:Manual of Style. Somebody attempted a 'guideline' on BI usage, but it was very biased, as was someone else's counter-proposal too (imo, it's now lost as he since retired). The guideline idea seemed to fizzle out.
With your interests, you might know more than me whether a smallish Wikiproject could work. Would there be enough significant Bi-related pages under its wing? If there is I would favour it above a noticeboard, otherwise we could start a noticeboard and see what happens. At very least it could free up the BI Talk page a bit. An advantage of the Wikiproject is that the closely-related pages could come under it (ie the naming dispute, the BI Terminology page, the BI Island list and the Britain and Ireland redirect (!) - as well as pages like Deer of the British Isles etc (there are many like this as I'm sure you know, inc lots of lists) and templates like Template:History of Christianity in the British Isles. It could work.
These are articles that link to the British Isles article. This is a Google list of "British Isles" in en.wikipedia.org - it says 57,500, but the 'real terms' Google figure is 845. Lots pop-up on Google, including something I played around with in my own 'userspace' a while back here and left in the air (pretty much mid-edit if I remember - I got fed up with the Talk on the main one I was working on - the usual culprits).
I notice that the 'BI naming dispute' page has been put in this quite commonly-used template:
v • d • e
The British Isles
Terminology · Naming dispute · Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA)
Politics
Political cooperation
Geography
Island groups
Lists of islands of
History
Current states and
dependencies
Former states
Society
Modern languages
Peoples
I'll try and find a way to remove it from it - I personally find the weight a few Wikipedians attribute to the "dispute" totally undue. I wouldn't mind if I could see real-life examples of it - but they want to push it in everyone's face based on a few academic quotes. I really want to see a proper Controversy section in the main article and lose the WP:POVFORK dispute page entirely - WP frowns upon them anyway. Before I edited it a month or so ago it was full of shockingly exaggerated language - none of which have even been reverted as they were so bad! Most of the discussion is in British Isles anyway - was makes the fork doubly-pointless, and of course all the arguing prevents the BI article from developing properly.
Incidentally, I've noticed this article, Geograph British Isles. What is your take on the Channel Islands being part of the BI or not? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matt, thanks for a detailed and considered response. My primary concern in suggesting a noticeboard was to provide a focus for the co-ordinated efforts that are clearly needed to defend British Isles usage in Wikipedia. I use the phrase "British Isles usage" to include related issues such as those you've noted and many others. Some things British seem to be under a general low-level attack here, and British Isles is facing a full frontal assault for what I consider to be political reasons. I find it quite sad really. I'm of Irish ancestry, have visited the country many times, have Irish relatives and friends and yet I've never come across this so-called controversy before. Only when I come to Wikiepdia do I come across it. Currently the biggest threat, so far as I know, is the systematic removal of British Isles by Bardcom and Crispness and it was this that prompted me to think of how we might organise a response. I suppose a noticeboard has merits but I'm not sure how much use it would get. Your idea of a Wikiproject may be better, and I expect it would come with some sort of noticeboard facility anyway (?). Maybe we should canvas the views of others - form all sides of the debate - and see if there's wider interest. If so, I'd be happy to set it up (with help - I'm stll stumbling around the mass of policies and procedures, not to mention the Wiki language). Regardless of project, noticeboard or whatever, it's clear that we need an immediate and continuing response to the removal of the term by Bardcom etc. I know you're doing your bit, and I have a go from time to time, but it's debilitating work, and not really what I came here for. Some of Bardcom's edits are accurate and of course I leave them untouched (this one for instance [16]), but others are completely incorrect and many others are of a dubious nature. Unfortunately keeping on top of it is almost a full-time job and leads to frustration and edit warring, especially when User:Crispness chips in at a third revert. There must be some sanction that can be imposed by the community that can put a stop to these damaging edits. Anyway, enough of my ranting. I find the subject of the Channel Islands difficult within the context of the British Isles. The term is purely geographic, and as such, the CIs don't fit. However, someone, somewhere (I haven't yet bothered to find out) has declared that they are part of the BI. I personally don't agree, and it gives some ammunition to the anti brigade who use it as evidence that the term is more than just geographic. What I find annoying is the suggestion that because BI is a purely geographic term it usage should be restricted to purely geographic matters. Such a view is utterly stupid (IMO) but as you know it's currently being used to try and reduce content at the article. Cheers, CarterBar (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
CarterBar, this is a clear ad hominen attack - this behaviour is a type of bullying and is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Also, organizing like this is a form of meat puppetry, and is also not tolerated. --Bardcom (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I will look at how to start up a Wikiproject. We would need support to maintain it, but hopefully that will come. You can't guarantee anything on Wikipedia though - some seemingly important Wikiprojects, like Journalism, are surprisingly devoid of life. I wouldn't bother canvassing the 'other side' on it though - apart from sounding like too much hard work, it isn't really necessary: Wikiprojects are positive things, and most of them will no-doubt challenge its value. I'm sure they will join in when its up (unfortunately, but that's life). A Wikiproject could in many repects be ideal to coordinate from - we can list the articles due to priority, and even give them "importance" tags. They can be a bit like a noticeboard, yes. If we do it properly (I might even get my photopaint out for the 'userbox') the anti-BI bunch will have really shot themselves in the foot pushing for so much the way they do. They have a huge platform to express themselves on Wikipedia (more than anywhere one else would afford them) and they have totally exploited it, grabbing more and more limelight - it's all political avarice, as you say. One or two seem to be almost delusional with their sense of righteousness on the subject, while others are clearly more cynically attempting to influence the wider world. It wouldn't bother me at all off Wikipedia - but this is simply not the place. Anyway - that's my own rant over.
RE your mention of ‘sanctions’: My own (slightly paranoid) problem with ‘taking things higher’ on Wikipedia is that I’ve noticed that the accused can inititally receive more of the admin’s AGF. It can go wrong for the complainer – and gives them a big boost if it does. You take a big gamble with the admin you get too: Some might give you all of 2 seconds, while others might actually be biased the other way. Sorry I’m cynical here - there are excellent admins out there, but you can’t always pick them, and this is my experience. What I have found, though, is that a lot of the anti-BI bunch are very reticent to complain themselves of things like 3RR, civility, POV etc - despite them often threatening to do so, and giving plenty of faux ‘warnings’. You may have come across the odd user GoodDay, who occasionally complains about proceedings from a kind-of curiously detatched position, btw! One or two of the anti-BI bunch have been in trouble in the past too: I have nothing behind me myself, but I prefer to tackle them hands on, anyway. If you get any sniff of sock-using though, make a note of the evidence!
I’ll put all the BI stuff I see on my Watchlist – though it’s tempting simply to follow Bardcom’s daily tracks. I’ll try and do stints where I replace a number at the time, if I see he's gone on a rampage. It is debilitating, you're right. Edit wars usually happen due to the lack of numbers involved: when enough join in on one side things never get to be an issue. A Wikiproject might encourage people not to be scared off: It’s not a great climate for reverting on Wikipedia at the moment – I find the all the warnings flying currently around a little foolish myself. People are forgetting they are entitled to be bold.
I agree that the Channel Islands are not part of the UK geographically. We’d have to think of how best to deal with that. Some gov website page somewhere does call them BI, I think – I’ve forgotten where exactly myself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Matt, this is a clear ad hominen attack and is a form of bullying that is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Also, meat puppetry is also not tolerated. --Bardcom (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CANVAS

Hi Matt. Please do not WP:CANVAS for !votes as you did at WP:FOOTY [17] and WP:Irish Football [18]. Any notification of debates should be made in a neutral manner, i.e. just saying what is being debated and where, and should not include any opinion on which way you think people should vote. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I only reported the Move in the two highly relevant Wikiprojects. Surely it is reporting not canvassing? Believe me - if I actually canvassed people the motion would be passed without doubt. It is not something I do though. I will certainly be appealing to people's emotions - what has happened regarding football is so atrocious you couldn't make it up. It makes Wikipedia look appalling.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It is the very definition of canvassing. And if anything is appaling here, it is your comparison of a page move to Nazism. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
But why would I go to that extreme? The way Wikipedia gets controlled by the minority with such serious effect, combined with the undeniable power of Wikipedia in the world, makes it clearly analogous in my opinion. You may personally find it an ugly comparison, but it's still analagous. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
And don't exaggerate the "canvassing" - I reported the WP:RM to the Irish football and Football wikiprojects (which I'm entitled to do). You should have told me here to 'tone down' my two short reports - not deleted lines from my text. All I wrote was: "As all other options have been tried and have failed, this should be the one that works. Brief and solid reasons are listed why it makes most sense. A broad participation would be most helpful." You should have asked me to change it (which I now have), not remove the lines like you did.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not exaggerating the canvassing. What you did was a classic example of what not to do. If you want to let people know there's a debate happening, that's all you should do. Don't mention any arguments or your opinion on whether its for the best or not. There was no need to change the sentence I removed; it was wholly unnecessary, and there was no point in replacing it. As for you defending your comparison with Nazism, you've just lost any sense of credibility and I just can't respect anything you might have to say on the subject. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have always been strongly against canvasing and have given someone a hard time for it myself. Your complaint about me "canvassing" is simply pedantic though, and I find your comment on my use of Nazism as a comparator sanctimonious, and actually a little childish. I have really lost all credibility and respect? Nobody owns Nazism as a 'subject' and I personally dislike this kind of topic-censorship, esp for such a packed, important and 'value'-filled matter (both football and Nazism are no small subjects!). I go where my mind takes me, and am too precise to cause offence - I have made no ambiguous 'generalisations', merely structural comparisons. Wikipedia is being massively exploited here - one 'stepping stone' at a time. Is it just a coincidence that you also happen to disagree with my Move proposal, I wonder.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that I disagree with your move proposal has nothing to do with my opinion on your behaviour. How on earth do you think Wikipedia is being exploited? It's just a WP:RM! пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It was passed with an "over 60% consensus"! What kind of consensus is that? Some involved were not even football fans. (policially it is seen by some in Ireland as a 'British' sport, with Gaelic football the true Irish one - the few who have prejudices bring them out). There is a handful of political Irish editors who go to great extremes to undermine Britishness on Wikipedia - they turn up here. There is only a small partisan turnout - which is why I think your accusations of canvasing is unfair re attendence encouragement, esp given what I would like to do, but am not doing - ie go to Talk in Football in England! That would simply win it for me - there is no way they would tolerate the alien word "Association" in the "home of football"! If I was at that last vote it could have been only 50% for "Association"! If we had a vote in the 'real word' it would not have been even 1% for Association. I'd never even heard of the term until I noticed someone (a good editor) resigned over it! God knows what he was put through.
All good Wikipedians respect the canvasing rules (including that guy I'm sure) - so you shouldn't be too particular about them. The fiasco also shows how people are willing to Wikilawyer (ie bend the rules) over 'conformity' - neither solution offers perfect conformity, but the Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland proposal is the more conforming, with the necessary qualifier in (brackets) per English grammar. the Irish press disambiguate between their two footballs using "soccer". Most other countries don't need to use the word. So we use brackets for the ROI to keep the conformilty of the "Football in" format. "Association" will always be at odds with Football in Scotland etc - they have not, nor will ever accept it. So where is the conformity with the ROI? Other countries don't have the cultural bullies that have provided just enough weight in the Republic of Ireland Football Talk to push it through. The bullies needed the help of the "Association is 'official'" sticklers, which are a real minority in the world.
There is a real deep resentment on Wkipedia over what happened to Football (soccer) - the word "official" overrided all common sense. It was a pantomime. This is footy for Christ's sake! Too-many non-football 'anal retentives' were involved. I won't go on or I'll get back on the WW2 comparisons you don't like!--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Association football

I wouldn't get too upset about it in all honesty. This is after all just wikipedia, it isn't going to affect the real world. And we shouldn't get too bothered about what happens on wikipedia (I know because I do it at times). I'm sorry though but I think that making comparisons with Nazism is a step too far and wholly inappropriate. No-one is going to die nor be tortured, nor be thrown into a concentration camp nor be part of any "solution" because if this. Like it or not though (and I don't particularly like the term), association football is the official name for the sport. As I said I sympathise with your point of view but in this instance my vote will remain the same, Mr Shakespeare or not! The White Devil, by John Webster now there is a play and a half! ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If I felt this was "just Wikipedia" I wouldn't be here in all honesty. I'd be reading more books. This place gets the "number 1" on search engines for most subjects - its power is extraordinary: for me, Wikipedia is a threat as much as a liberator for society. I've spent a lot of my time on here fighting political bias and advertising. If people didn't take real pains to continually work at Wikipedia's faults it would quickly be a shithole frankly - sorry, but that's the way I feel about it. Sometimes it is cringingly embarrassing - like with football. You don't have to remind me what the Nazis got up to - the reasoning is clearly "if this what else?" - ie WP is clearly corruptible. It is the potential for control (and to be controlled) that I am alluding to. Also the conformity and surreality analogies are strong ones. A great many people in the 'real world' just pretend Wikipedia isn't there - I can't do that. I also can't ignore the weight of WW2 when I need a good example! (I often use Shakespeare in a similar vein - extremes are useful examples, due to the inarguably 'purity' of so much about them). --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
So with The White Devil are you referring to corruption, ambiguity, hysteria maybe? Is Football (soccer) a "black devil"? I've not read it - what do you mean? --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way - as you opposing the change to "Football (soccer)" on the Republic of Ireland article as "Association Football" is the "offical name" - will you be changing England too? And Wales? And France? And Germany? etc. Soccer suits the ROI as it is actively used there - I just don't see the problem. Will you be now changing England?--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Desrie me still this? To answer your questions, no I won't be "changing England" as you put it; not because I don't want it to happen but because I don't, unlike your good self, have a strong opinion about it one way or the other. However, if it were changed to Association football then I would be perfectly happy too. Association, football and soccer are mere words. Just my opinion but there are far more important things to worry about than mere words and mere words on wikipedia. As for the White Devil - you read way, way too much into my comment about it. It is a superb play, no hidden meaning in my mentioning it, no reference to anything other than I actually think it is a superb play, one I saw about 10 or so years ago in Stratford at the Swan theatre. I don't "mean" anything by it other than recommending it to you, it is superb. As for the football issue I really wish I hadn't voted. And despite what you say, association, football and soccer have not led to mass exterminations so no I really do believe your analogy is with respect, in poor taste. I would be grateful though if you would just leave me out of this now. I wish you good luck with it though. It has certainly created debate and maybe you will win support for the change in the end.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - I thought you meant something with White Devil, and if I had it around I'd have started reading it. I had a quick look on Wikipedia and it does look interesting - I'll give it a go if it pops up in a secondhand bookshop. I am a bit harum scarum with strong examples I suppose - but I do respect the taste argument, certainly. I have few 'taboos' (so to speak) and maybe should have pushed back the urge - it is a big issue to me though, and my context was not the atrocities but the structure. If Sound of Music wasn't in the background I probably would have found a way of saying it all without the example! I can see it's not particularly helped me as such - but I always felt this would be a tough battle with the main football article being "Association", and conformity being such a strong force on Wikipedia - especially in votes, where it's a kind of 'tick box' for passers by.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the above. Aye The White Devil is one of those plays that rarely seems to be staged and I was fortunate to see it live and loved it. I do sympathise with your position and hope that it gets resolved in the end.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm giving it a big go, but I'm not going to flog a dead horse if I'm clearly going to lose it. There's too much other stuff I plan to do. I'm hoping support will come along - I know it's out there - but you never quite know with Wikipedia what is going to happen! Sometimes you think, there are x million members - so why is this talk empty? I've walked into some clearly undeveloped articles (at the time) the stature of Wales and Terry Pratchett and found them quite stagnant - literally with nothing going on. I've never worked it out, though sometimes 'article-hangers' can be a bit unwelcoming I suppose. Much of Wikipedia is a mystery to me: it's fascinating in a way, the way people behave on it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wikipéire

No doubt if he's got a dynamic IP (albeit from a smallish range) or is using an open proxy, then yes, he can amend his userpage. I, on the other hand, can simply do this. GBT/C 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

At least he's now offered his own proof for the '78.16' range! Thanks for stopping it from carrying on. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - I've got most of the relevant pages watchlisted, but if you see anything from that range pop up on an old stomping ground, feel free to let me know. GBT/C 21:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User Talk:Bardcom. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BI issues

Hi Matt, Thanks for your response. Let me read it in detail and get back to you. I've about had enough for this evening! Walking behind Bardcom with a bucket and shovel is getting tedious! Cheers. CarterBar (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User Talk:Matt Lewis. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bardcom (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt - I really think we should try and keep this debate factual and let others provoke but not be provoked. Your latest post is in danger of feeding trolls (much as I get tempted myself). --Snowded (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The above comment wasn't to me (I've just indented it). Or do you mean the BI page? - maybe I shouldn't have bothered with my last comment, as it's old ground I suppose. But he/she re-hashed a number of the cliches in on go. Bardcom was actually right in his response - some people think they can speak for the whole of Ireland and quite simply they can't. I don't like people suggesting it is sometimes "6 of one, half a dozen of the other" either - it's not at all like that in my experience. Most of the so-called "British" (in their pejorative sense) are just people like me, who are not into unifying Ireland (who the hell wants that?), but simply don't want to see Wikipedia an eysesore of bold refs and bias. Remember what it gets like before those removals people like me make which are grudgingly accepted by them: I've made a number on the "dispute" page they have grumbled about but tellingly not bothered to replace. If people allowed them, they would simply carry on grabbing more and more space until one of them removes the article for being "not relevant to anyone." --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I presume you're including me in your ad hominem characterization "another itinerant nationalist". Prove it or withdraw it. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No. You have got your way simply because I feel I can't trust gambling on unseen admins. Now Jack Forbes is with you I am keeping away from you, and I'm going to help Wikipedia here another way. You have had thousands of words from me, and you have callously ignored almost all of them. Somehow you are in control of that article, and I would be a fool to waste any more of my time on you. Others can try and sort you out.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I confess to being a little peeved off with the way you react to me whenever I take an opposing view. I would appreciate you being a bit more civil in your responses, whether you agree with me or not. Jack forbes (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you apparently still don't get it. I'm not in control of the article, but I am not the only editor who can read the references and not the only editor who does not have a reason to try to overrule the references. It seems as if consensus might form around dave souza's suggestion. Does that make him in control of the article? Wotapalaver (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm tired of you, your schoolboy language like "you apparently still don't get it", your endless exaggerations and repetitions. I prepared a 'critique' of the refs for you, but you've shown nothing to suggest you will not crudely ignore it, as you always have when I've put the points in front of you. Your exact-word repetition after I've asked you not to do it is basic trolling - and you know that: You've done it many times just to wind me up. You have shown clear contempt over compromises too - not that you deserve to be compromised with. Wikipedia will benefit from the work I've done in a different way - it certainly won't be wasted on a rendered-ineffectual BI Talk page. Now please say whatever you have to say on BI talk - I don't need this in here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Matt, I've been perfectly willing to look at the critique. The fact that I bring it up indicates such. If you don't wish to engage in civil discussion that's a pity but I'll respect your wishes, just keep your ad hominems to yourself . Bye now. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
My, that "ad hominem" is a popular phrase. "Bye" to you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't be too frustrated Matt. See my experience on the Scotland article. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frankie says...

Matt, while our paths rarely cross activly, I have seen alot of the work you have done on the home nation articles (and the various connected articles) and so I know your recent outburst over the Association Football vs Football (Soccer) move on the RoI page is out of character, but take it from someone who has some respect for you, that this is one you need to let go. The, if you will forgive me using the term, ranting and raving just turns those of us who would otherwise support you away. It also just helps others make glib ad hominem remarks and well, as I am sure you know, they /do/ work despite their logical issues. Perhaps you should get out of the trenches for a while, edit some articles not directly related to the home nations in the current period? If you have an interest in history, there are some great British history articles that could do with some work. I am aware I am a somewhat unknown editor, but I hope you will consider taking some part of the advice. Narson (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you writing that, but it partly went the way it did because the way the voting and dialogue panned out (and I've also been mainly on my own) - reading through it it looks a lot worse than it actually feels for me - ie I'm not that stressed at all!! I was provoked quite a lot towards the end - which was the risk I took being so 'full on'. I still am being provoked a little - I can see I'm going to have to relinquish the last word, and to someone who probably isn't even a football fan! So I won't fight to the very end. I made an early decision to fight it rather than let it peter out - it was a hard one to actually win from the outset with the lack of page-watchers, and the Association Football article intact. It was a loss, but I'm glad I did it - I felt I couldn't just leave the pushed-through consensus I initially saw. A 'good weekend' would have been nice (and might have been interesting), but with Wikipedia you just never know. I hoped for a surge - and if it happened who knows? I'm sure I wouldn't be writing this, as you can't beat votes: alas it wasn't to be, and it's done now anyway. But thanks for your concern.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bardcom

Hi Matt, been away for a few days, but I notice during my absence the BI deletions have been going on at a fair rate of knots. I'm particularly anooyed at some of the ones today, because they blatantly remove facts just to get rid of the term. I've been looking at various procedures at Wikipedia. Do you think a Request for Comment might help? I know Bardcom has been subject to one already, but it might be worth another try. Something must be done. I feel the encyclopedia is being damaged by Bardcom's actions - and yes, I note his repeated "warnings" to users about so-called personal attacks. I'm not bothered by them. Thanks. CarterBar (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been busy too - a few admins do know what he is doing. As soon as I've got time I'll help to get his unacceptable removals back, then we can look at making a report on his actions - it is utterly gross and provocative of him. Admins can do more than he thinks - he likes to 'Wikilawyer - but it's not all about the letter of the law re 3RR etc.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User Talk:Matt Lewis. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You continue to make personal remarks attacking me. This is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Your latest remarks "it is utterly gross and provocative of him" are personal and do not address any concerns about any articles. As I've stated before, I'm always happy to discuss my edits on any article. If you continue to make ad hominen remarks and attacks, I will report your behaviour and you may be blocked. Bardcom (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally find your removals of the term "British Isles" across Wikipeda "gross" behaviour - I am entitled to do so, and it is honestly how I feel. You know that your actions have no cross-Wikipedia consensus (and that people feel they need to find the time to revert your actions), and thus I find it provocative of you to carry on, regardless.
Please stop calling valid criticisms of your undeniably-extreme editing behaviour "personal attacks". It will not act in your favour. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. With respect, WP:NPA makes it clear that behaviour involving personal attacks will not be tolerated. You continue to make personal comments and attacks, and this final warning is for again referring to my edits as "gross behaviour". Regardless of how you personally think or feel, you are not entitled to attack other editors. Bardcom (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am having to reply to you as you are just soiling my Talk page - and people do visit it from time to time to find out about me, as someone has just said they did below. STOP GIVING ME THESE SILLY WARNINGS NOW! If you are bothered with me saying to CarterBar that I find your systematic "British Isles" removal from numerous articles "gross behaviour" then make a bloody complaint, as you keep threatening to do. JUST STOP TROLLING ME WITH WARNINGS! There is no requirement on Wikipedia that you need to keep warning someone - these 'warnings' are simply provocative acts that look vaguely officious - but are not official at all.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Matt, the purpose of a warning is so that you have a chance to alter the behaviour that caused the warning, and to mark the offense (if any). Policy states that you should avoid making personal remarks about other editors, and to focus on the edit, not the editor. Despite these warnings, you've continued to personally attack me. Also, despite what you say, there *is* a requirement on wikipedia to continue to issue warnings. I have now issued a final warning, and as it states, if you continue to attack me, I will complain, and you may be blocked. The purpose of having warned you is to show an examining admin that all reasonable efforts were made by me to point out why I warned you, and to point out the specific incident, and to hope that you alter your behaviour.
Look, you obviously believe that many of my edits are incorrect. If that's the case, don't attack me - instead go to the article Talk page and discuss why you disagree. It's as simple as that. --Bardcom (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Matt is not attacking you, he is questioning your edits. That is clear for all to see. I too am questioning your edits because I find them provocative and many of them introduce errors into Wikipedia (some are valid). Calling your edits "provocative" or "utterly gross" is not attacking you personally, it's a commentary on your work. Neither Matt, nor I, nor anyone else is calling you, we are simply reacting to editing behaviour we consider to be inappropriate. Please stop issuing these false warnings, and more to the point stop removing British Isles usage from this encyclopedia. Here's a friendly suggestion - move on to something else in Wikipedia. There's a whole world out there and I'm sure you could provide useful content in many areas without causing controversy. Please consider this suggestion, initially perhaps as a temporary measure, before it is forced upon you. (copied to Bardcom's Talk page) CarterBar (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll be short and clear. Personal attacks are not tolerated, and both you and Matt have been warned on this several times in the past. How you feel, or how Matt feels, does not give you the right to attack me. Calling my edits (for the second time, after being warned already) utterly gross *is* a personal attack. I've always been happy to discuss my edits - CarterBar, you already know this as we've had many discussions. You make the point that I occasionally introduce errors - if this is true, point them out. I would argue that for the most part, articles have fewer errors after my editing than before, and the term British Isles is now either used correctly and referenced, or replaced with the correct term. If you or Matt find this editing provocative or somehow believe it gives you the right to attack me, you are mistaken. --Bardcom (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Both I and CarterBar are clearly alarmed by your 'British Isles'-removal edits, and there is no law at all against us discussing that with each other. You are wrong if you think we cannot do it: These are personal Talk pages, and we are not making anything up about you at all. How can you be so offended when you are culling the term from Wikipedia at the same time? Don't think admins will take too kindly to your 'British Isles'-removal edits - they are totally against the philosophy of Wikipedia (including this one policy: WP:PRESERVE). When I have time today I will be concertedly focussing on the latest removals (as I've been planning to the last couple of days) - I will leave a comment about every one I choose to deal with in the requisite Talk pages, as I usually do. Some may indeed turn out to be valid, but in general it is simply not on.
PS. You might have forgotten the way this ended, but I haven't. You never replied to that - and it's the extent I'm willing to go to prove someone is wrong. Your attitude was poor then and is no better now. As we are asking things of each other let me ask this: please don't so lazily waste any more of my time. You cannot remove references to Ireland's history within the UK (or the The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as it once was called) and you cannot remove valid references to "British Isles" from within Wikipedia unchallenged. It is ultimately a waste of everyone's time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GoodDay

Hello Matt. Please don't question my motives (at British Isles), as I've not questioned yours. It doesn't help in cooling things down. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
With respect - I've always struggled to understand you (you cannot be surprised by this given the off-the-wall way you make comments!) - and at the moment I simply cannot understand you at all. I don't think you've done much to cool things down lately, which I thought was your 'thing'. How do you justify backing that Souza 'suggestion'? It just takes away the line that says "British Isles" is widely used! With the self-proclaimed nationalists Snowded and Jack Forbes coming from Wales (via Scotland in Forbes case) - I can't see any hope for this article at the moment. I feel very cheated the way I've been sweet-talked into things on Wales too - esp the Info box. Never under-estimate how the the pull of nationalism obscures and warps fariness and objectivity. I have always been for the integrity of Wikipedia: it has the power to encompass everything when used properly. I also like to know where people stand, and I haven't a clue with you!.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ask others who know me. I'm quite apolitical & there's no place where I stand. Think of it, I'm a republican who frequents monarchy articles. I'd hoped by joining the current BI discussion, I could've calmed the waters; but I see now, my calculations were wrong. Very well, I shall 'keep out of it'. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you have said that elsewhere before, I admit. I myself have politics (and they are not as decidedly "British" as people say they are regarding BI), but I strive to keep them aside: it certainly IS possible - for me anyway (and according to WP policy, of course, it is essential.) Regarding you choosing to 'keep out' or not - you can do what you want - but I have to say that I've not asked you to do anything other than explain to me why you supported something I myself see as clearly nationalistic and disruptive. Simply removing the words that say "Although (the British Isles is) widely used" and then having the gall to present it as a "compromise", and a "developing consensus"?? It is a strange thing for an apolitical person to support, let alone an 'appeasing 'Wikipedian. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Do as you like, think as you like. I'm obviously not helping things. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wotapalaver

Hello Matt. I believe you should be careful of 3RR. You've definitely done three reverts already and the first edit after the page protection might also be viewed as a revert. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Now you are doing it properly - ok. They are not reverts in the sense you mean: too much goes on when someone with unexpressed ideas (in this case Tharkuncoll) justs removes everything (inc the original text) simply expressing "POV", and then an abusive IP (who's called me a BNP supporter) jumps in and replaces the original text again. Waht do I do? I have basically made more than 3 edits - and I only planned to make one. It's not my fault - it seems that making one single edit and allowing it to be reverted is impossible in BI - it immediately gets complicated. If you played fairer in Talk I wouldn't make any edits at all - I'd leave it to others, the way I get trapped in the 'edit ring'. I hardly want to get in trouble again do I? But compromise with you would mean you taking a proverbial mile instead of several hundred - and you just refuse to budge at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I put a warning here now because you did a further revert since I first commented on the article page. As for your "innocence" in this, I struggle to see how you can claim it. The first edit on the page after the removal of protection - while discussion is still ongoing - is your edit, which wildly and knowingly goes against whatever shred of consensus was emerging on talk. On top of all that, your edit was factually incorrect as well. Cool. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You have said in British Isles Talk that I am trying to start edit wars, and that I should be banned for it: Where is the apology I asked for? I don't normally ask for apologies - but for this I demand one. You now sound like you are planning to Report my recent edits, like you did before: It is a small person indeed that tries to get others in trouble the way you have done with me.
As for what you call the "emerging consensus" - that little 'poll' was the most insulting case of mick-taking I've ever seen on Wikipedia: I made proposals to find a compromise (as I always do), and a small group of anti-British responded by supporting making things even more unfair: You now want to remove the line that says that "British Isles" is widely used! This is posed as a compromise to people who find the article too-weighted towards a Wikipedia-fashioned "name dispute" that has nothing like this much weight given to it anywhere else in the World! The article is called British Isles and you have thoroughly abused it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Matt Lewis, I am unable to "get you in trouble" on Wikipedia. Only you can do that, by edit-warring and personal attacks. You seem to like both of these approaches. Again, I supported a text proposed by another editor, and I still do. If you believe there is a "small group of anti-British" then you're simply wrong, incorrect, not right, etc. Finally, please point to even a single case where I have "thoroughly abused" the British Isles article. I've stuck to references and not much else. Your problem is that you don't like what the references say. That's not my problem. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Football

Hi, Matt. Following the whole Football in the Republic of Ireland thing I came to your user page curious about which club or country you support. Unusually for an avowed football fan you haven't specified anywhere! I'm guessing Wales but club, I can't guess. Cardiff? Swansea? An English club? Myself, I follow Manchester United. Clichéd, I know, but they've always had a huge following in Ireland. I'm too young to remember Munich but I well remember watching the 1968 European Cup final in snowy black and white on Irish television (all we had at the time). I remember George Best, relegation, promotion, defeat by Second division Southampton in the Cup final, spoiling Liverpool's treble run, the ten-minute final of 1979 (but with six Irish on the Arsenal team, including three Dubs, I could surely be forgiven for enjoying that one), Kevin Moran sent off (a former Dublin GAA star), buying Eric Cantona from Leeds, winning the inaugural Premier League, Beckham's goal from his own half, Giggs's goal against Arsenal in the 1999 Cup semi-final, Schmeichel's cartwheel in the Champions League Final...I'm getting carried away here! Anyway, with England and Ireland missing, who are you going to be shouting for in Euro 2008? I reckon I'll be shouting for Portugal—yes, I know van der Sar plays for Holland and Evra plays for France but Cristiano is the man, and they have Nani as well! Anyway, I'm sorry that I didn't show my true colours in the discussion on the RM, but I feel strongly that an editor should be able to express an opinion without declaring his POV so that's what I did. I also follow Irish football, being a Shamrock Rovers follower, but from a distance—I did go to matches until the ******* owners sold the grounds, but my heart isn't in it now. I also follow Dublin in both Gaelic football and hurling, and my dearest wish is for the hurlers to taste some success at last, because it would be so good for the game if they did! I believe that true sports fans should stick together, and not fight, so even if you turn out to be a City or a Chelsea man, let's not be forever enemies. Peace, man. Scolaire (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I’m sorry Scolaire, I just found your behaviour a bit too ignorant. Whatever you thought of my approach, you could have dealt with my arguments (even in tandem to your ultimately-provoking reprimands): but you never once did. Despite your gloating comments on the 'loss' in Talk, in my own opinion it was you who was actually made the 'fool' of - by some of your fellow Irishmen, who dropped by simply to demote their British neighbours. It will be those names you’ve never actually seen on the football’s main-page edit history. You seem to appear to be more friendly (rather disconcertingly), but I’m not feeling particularly neighbourly to you I’m afraid: especially after just noticing your "19:3" toll-up was a rather clumsy miscount - comments aside, it was retired-early on 15:4! As for my local team, I see them once in a while but have never felt the urge to broadcast it here (even after the cup final), and there are editors who know far more about the squad etc than I. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Cardiff, then. I was right the first time :-) Don't worry, I'm not offended that you haven't warmed to me. I did gloat at the end but, to be fair, I had spent a deal of time and energy trying to get you to calm down - for your own sake, whether you believe it or not. And it's also (mostly, but not altogether) true that I never dealt with your arguments. That's because it was clear to me from the outset that it was impossible to get through to you on that level, you were just so much in your own little world that you couldn't imagine another POV might exist. Unlike the posters below, I think you're wise to retire. You need to get out of this virtual world and live real life for a while. I believe you'll come out of retirement in your own good time, stronger than ever, with a clear head and a sense of purpose. So long, Matt, it's been real. Scolaire (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You have no idea what I get up to in "my own little world" or in "real life" bucko! I'll be earning more money now I'm out of this place - that's the main thing for me right now. I'll mostly have Adobe on my laptop instead of Firefox, though that's far more demanding 'background work' that this. I can't quite see myself coming back when I look at what I hopefully have ahead in life - I've been trying to tighten-up my WP use anyway: and I've spent too much time here near unsavory people. I've also been stamped with a reputation - though very unjustified: It's not in my world to be seen as an irrational trouble causer, but a trigger-happy admin has branded me just that. Now I've heard some more of you, and I've got a better idea of your probable tracks, btw, I can't say I'd be itching to cross you again! I'm just one man. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about that last bit. Does "cross" mean cross swords (fight) or cross my path (meet)? And what are my "probable tracks"? Don't bother to answer if you'd rather just forget about me. Scolaire (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Matt from GoodDays talk page

Where did I mention that it is a canny game? Maybe you will learn that you take yourself too seriously. There you go with your accusations of POV again, please give it a rest, it's getting rather boring. I know what wikipedia is all about, and it's not about throwing tantrums when you don't get your own way, it's not about trying to bully people into going along with your opinion, and it's not about using curse words in your replys. I actualy popped into football in Ireland and a couple of editors went against you, not because they did'nt agree with you, but because of your attitude, get the picture? I have always tried to be civil with you but I must say one last thing DON'T BE A CHILD, GROW UP!! Jack forbes (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

From Scotland to Wales to the British Isles? Can you travel your road to independence off Wikipedia please? it is the winks and the lies that have pissed me off: your chatty lines, and your crocodile tears when I questioned your motives. You have not always been civil either (you have been provocative twice before) - but it makes little odds since I've earlier expressed my feelings. I strongly resent what you pulled-off with the Wales Info box (getting the First Minister before the Prime Minister) - it was purely to try and get Scotland in line - and was no different to what the now-banned Wikipeire was up to in Wales, just more underhand. You couldn't wait 2 minutes to try and get rid of the "constituent" from "constituent country" too - despite what we had all just been through with Wikipeire and the other now-banned user. The 'innocent' reasons you gave simply got less and less plausible: I respond to honesty, nothing else.
You should take the advice I gave on you on GoodDay's talk - it was good advice - and not respond by calling me a "child" on my Talk page. Whatever my temper is like, I am helping create an encyclopedia - you are simply promoting Scotland, and demoting Britain - through any avenue you find. You have shown no interest in reading archives, or in WP policy like POV, verifiabilty and weight. My message is: KEEP YOUR POLITICS OFF WIKIPEDIA. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Only if you keep your childishness and pro-British POV off wikipedia. You must think I was born yesterday! Go and take a break from wiki and leave wikipedia to grownups, maybe in a years time you will be ready to talk to people withought screaming and sobbing at your computer! Jack forbes (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Not an adult reponse. You would be surprised by my politics. What you call "pro-British" is just a simplistic reaction to me not playing the nationalism game. Wikipedia comes first. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Then why are you constantly going on Irish related pages and causing trouble? By the way, I really don't care what you think now, but you where way off the mark in your assessment of me as far as making changes to the Wales infobox. I happen to be interested in my fellow Celtic countries. And I take it as a gross insult to compare me to Wikipeire! Jack forbes (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the paranoia that comes with extreme nationalism! Going on what Irish pages and causing trouble? Regarding other UK nations - crossing-over is one thing I don't do!
These are my tracks: The Manual of Style Talk and essay are about the UK - which covered Ireland a little when we went into history. It took me to British Isles - which is about the British Isles (not just Ireland) - and I've been involved a lot longer than you. Association football in the Republic of Ireland was about the word "Association" being pre-fixed to "football in.." articles (which simply happened to ROI football first). I've certainly seen the same anti-British faces throughout my travels (funnily enough), but I've simply gone where Wikipedia has taken me!
So you are wrong - I have never myself gone to the Irish articles and got involved with their workings - nor have I with Scotland or England. I also have principal Wikipedia interests that do not cross nationality at all: looking at your history as it stands you have been single-minded from the start! This is of course transparent - all I've done is spot it and realised your motives, which are transparent too. You are simply trying to tar me with the same brush.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
What really gets me is that you and others make the word nationalist seem like a dirty word. I've got news for you, I'm proud to be a nationalist and my aim is to help Scotland gain independence. This does not mean I push it into wikipedia. Let's go back to the Wales infobox. I proposed that the First Minister be placed above Prime Minister which made perfect sense to me as the article is called Wales. I did not do this unilateraly, there was an agreement after discussion. I did the same with Scotland for the same reason. Tell me please where I was sly in this? You also mention me wanting to drop constituent and leave country, yes I suggested this, Snowdon agreed with this, but when I realised there would be no consensus for this I dropped it and never brought it up again. You compare me to Wikipeire, do you think he would have dropped it like that? Scotland changed it to country with plenty of sources to back it up. Although I took part in the discussion I was not a major player. How was that sly? And finally I placed the Scottish national anthem in the infobox, sly? One more thing, I initially agreed to place de facto next to the Welsh national anthem, do you think Welsh nationalists would be pleased with me there, some people were not too pleased about it. I wonder if they thought I did it because I was anti-Welsh nationalist? Jack forbes (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I would be pleased if you could apologise for comparing me to that sockpuppet using Wikipeire, but I won't hold my breath. Jack forbes (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You say you "aim to help Scotland gain independence": If you still aim to do it on Wikipedia you will be abusing it. You have certainly shown this clear pattern, despite your bullshit above - save me it please - it is doubly-cringing for me given that you are talking about my own country. You are just like the now-banned Wikipéire in that Wales is simply a tool to help you with stumbling-blocks you have encountered in your own country: you say it is so in Wales, and that "consistency" must be adhered to. I find it belittling to my small and proud country that people can feel they can do this here: it's just an easier ride in Wales. In fact - fuck off. Do you get the full weight of my feelings now? You are exploiting 'cross-article consistency' to game consensus, and I despise this element of Wikipedia. The nationalism I dislike is the extreme version you see in the young and foolish - it is the nationalism where people put country before everything, and can justify exploiting anything to achieve the nationalist goal. I do not spend my time on Wikipedia to see it abused in this way. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You are a very sad person, I actually feel sorry for you! Jack forbes (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Lovely. Let's leave it there. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are almost succeeding in pushing me out of wikipedia, I'm sure now you know that you will go for the final push! You can then accuse other people of POV when they disagree with you. I hope your proud of yourself. Jack forbes (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time to cool off

Matt, you've been warned time and again for incivility, personal attacks, edit warring, etc. and you must know that edits like this are simply not acceptable. It seems you've been becoming more and more aggressive and personal in your editing and it's time to have a break so that you can cool down and start thinking rationally again.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks and blatant incivility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Waggers (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth have you done this? I had said the conversation is concluded - it is Jack who isn't letting it go by going to admins and other editors. I have “cooled off” (I was only hot for a moment) – and I MUST express myself on my own Talk page. Is this language-censorship? What is it? Jack Forbes gave as good as he got – and my point about him stands. Are you green-lighting Jack Forbes in a general sense ? (and why get involved?) I do need to know this now, as my time is valuable to me: I am questioning why I am on Wikipedia every day at the moment: it has to make sense to me. I remember you from the BI nationality dispute (before you were an admin?) - are you too close to this do you think? Please answer these questions. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually don't bother: when I look at your opening line "you've been warned time and again for incivility, personal attacks, edit warring, etc." ("etc" for heaven's sake? Isn't the rest exaggerated enough!) - it simply makes me look like a bad Wikipedian. I'm just not having that. Less than 50% of admins seem to be up to the job, and unfortunately I always feel there should be more. Is worth me staying? Honestly - No. I could appeal yes, but what's the point?: Wikipedia has got to the hysterical point where editing is too-often seen as a crime (and a mark against your name), any old joe can throw around official-looking warnings (do you see me doing it?), too-busy admins simply head-count everything, and incidents are not treated on merit, but on a perceived "reputation". Name a developed country that works like that? It is a catch I can't see myself getting out of. I have a lot I still planned to do, but I can't see the merit in staying: Wikipedia has vast power and needs value-driven guideline-obeying people like myself - it is mainly the politicised who seem to understand the power of this place - but life is full of other things, and I can't see myself fitting in here anymore.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You were blocked for giving Jackforbes a vulger suggestion. Wikipedia tends to frown upon the usage of certain words being used in heated moments. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RETIRED

I'm trying to think of who to say goodbye to. One guy's left himself over the farce with football. CarterBar - good luck. RolandR springs to mind. There's a motley bunch at Alzheimer's. I have seen several admins who are in fact very good (shit you guys are up against it!) I'll leave it there. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt, don't be silly - there's no need for this. Just take a break, calm down a bit, and relax. Wikipedia is not a battleground and we can't let it become one. Yes, Jack's behaviour was far from impeccable but I didn't see him telling anyone to f**k off. Oh, and if you do feel that the block was unjustified, use the {{unblock}} template and get it reviewed. I won't be offended. Waggers (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Matt, your passion and conviction can sometimes overflow into passionate language and strong statements, and from there into personal comments - and these are never going to go down well. Focus on the positives - you've made some friends here, you've made some fine contributions, and nobody wins every edit war - but you learn and move on. I hope you decide to take a little time to relax, and then resume editing - we may not see eye to eye very much, but I respect your contributions. --Bardcom (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Use your current block as & brief Wikibreak, then return to the community. Ain't no reason to retire. I can't get diacritics removed from Wikipeda, nor can I get the following articles - England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in sync; but it's not something for me to retire over. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - don't be intimidated into leaving Wikipedia. Anyway, you shouldn't have been blocked. I thought a warning had to be given first, and I see no warning from the admin. Seems like "shoot first ask questions later" to me. CarterBar (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're wrong there on several counts. There's no requirement to warn before blocking, but in any case Matt had been warned several times previously about his behaviour. And I considered the matter long and hard before issuing the block. Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia, it's as simple as that. Waggers (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You are just so wrong about the "other warnings" When? For what? By who? Trolls? Gaming editors? IPs? Socks? Did you really weigh them or did you just count them? Were they valid warnings? Or technically incorrect, like Bardcom's warnings for example? Were they perhaps trying to 'get in first', like Wotapalaver (who I really should have Warned myself - go and look).
Maybe you need to take a little longer - use the time to read up on what constitutes an ad hominen attack. --Bardcom (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
How can it be true you "thought long and hard"? Jack Forbes threatened to leave Wikipedia (he's been full of crocodile tears - and is he leaving now?) and you clearly tried to change his mind by blocking me. For some reason you laid it on as thickly as you possibly could - I hope it wasn't personal, because if it was I really must have upset you somehow. Jack had already been to at least two admins, his mates, and also to Bardcom as he noticed I was in disagreement with him (which couldn't have been more provoking to me) and was told by all effectively to calm down. In the end an admin came along and simply gave him what he was clearly looking for. Did you really think about what other admins, Bardcom, myself elsewhere, and his 'buddies', actually told him regarding his grievances? If you did consider them you have little respect for the rest of Wikipedia - and especially for me. So much of Wikipedia is a struggle for all of us - why on earth make it worse?
"exaggeration, exaggeration", "etc etc" - its just a total character assassination: a full-on attack that was clearly intended to leave a lasting mark against my name. I am just appalled by what you've done: I find it a barbaric form of law-giving, grossly grossly unfiar. I just don't know why you did it - but it's caused simply insurmountable problems for me. If other admins in the future act the way you have done (and as others I've seen and experienced) I'm basically pre-judged as a trouble causer. I can't work with that over my head, or in others thoughts - and I've done nothing at all to deserve it. You have simply ended Wikipedia for me.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Matt, it's been made abundantly clear why I felt it was necessary for you to step away from the keyboard, and it's also clear how to contest the block if you think it's unfair. (By my reckoning it's expired now anyway). For the record, it certainly had nothing to do with Jack's retirement from the project - I wasn't aware of that at all when I blocked you. But surely the fact that your actions have caused (1) an admin to block you and (2) a fellow Wikipedian to retire must mean that something you did was wrong. Bullying and trading insults are not suitable behaviour for a project like this.
I didn't block you as a result of any of the previous warnings you've received, but purely for your recent behaviour. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in what I said. As for "laying it on" I was only trying to make you aware of what you're doing and how you've been affecting other editors.
"So much of Wikipedia is a struggle for all of us - why on earth make it worse?" - personally I find Wikipedia quite an easy and enjoyable project to contribute to, as long as you bear the basics in mind (WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc. - but these are fundamentals of life, not just WP!). If there's some particular aspect you struggle with, I'm happy to help if you'd like.
"a full-on attack that was clearly intended to leave a lasting mark against my name" - it was nothing of the sort. It was a temporary block to give you some time to relax and reflect, and hopefully come back calmer and in a more constructive frame of mind. Nothing more, nothing less.
By the way, now that the block has expired, if you genuinely still feel that it was wrong (especially to the level that you indicate) you can still get it reviewed, and possibly (in principle at least - I'm not sure about the technicalities) removed from your record. Wikipedia takes abuse of the admin tools very seriously and I'm sure WP:ARBCOM will do the same if they agree with your viewpoint. Waggers (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
My comments in bold:
"For the record, it certainly had nothing to do with Jack's retirement from the project – I wasn't aware of that (you acted on his threat to retire - and he DID NOT retire) at all when I blocked you. But surely the fact that your actions have caused (1) an admin to block you (you blocked me! What kind of argument is that?) and (2) a fellow Wikipedian to retire (he didn’t) must mean that something you did was wrong. Bullying (am I a "bully" because Jack says I am?) and trading insults are not suitable behaviour for a project like this. (trading, yes - you know we both traded - he has always traded, and this is my own Talk page) "
  1. Jack DID NOT retire – he’s even commented below (which you must have read, as you removed the IP’s comment after him). He took a “wikibreak” - embarrassed, I hope.
  2. You blocked me immediately AFTER he threatened to retire above, then urged him not to do it on his Talk page – why lie about this?
  3. Did you once wonder why Jack called his section in my own Talk page ”Reply to Matt from GoodDays talk page”? A bit loud for my Talk page isn’t it? After I ended the conversation, he then threatened to resign, and looked for support. He only had good advice, but unfortunately you came along and vilified me with your warning. He then changed his tune. Why must he be protected like a baby? Mollycoddle children and they never stop crying. He brought it to my Talk page shouting as loudly as he could – and I have got severely punished - not just with a 48 hours block (which in itself I would just have tried to get quashed or made shorter - as my language in my Talk page has been strong) - but with a hugely exaggerated (It's no better when I read it all again) and seriously damaging character and edit-related attack on my name. How can you be allowed to shoot an editor down like that? It was just a huge abuse of power.
I have very little confidence in the system - and your underlying confidence in yourself is just a bad sign. The comment you made before your block is clear, whatever you say now - you judged me by one person's threat to retire, and a brief look at my Talk page: you then went to town on my name. Now you say it's my recent behaviour (from when - and what is the difference?) - but you are still effectively supported ‘the other side’ in various arguments on my Talk page - the other sides to me. What right have you got to do that? It simply pays dividends on Wikipedia to complain, 'take offense', and throw out variously-phrased Talk-page 'warnings'! I've really suffered here by not stooping to that tactic myself (despite many an opportunity - including over most of what you think you've read above).
It is actually against WP policy to abuse complaints and warnings - they can be in themselves a personal attack. If you act on complaints like this to others you will help wreck Wikipedia, and your talk page will be full of frustrated (nothing more) people queueing for your "help!" Don't assume there are that many good editors to spare! You have quoted me some guidelines, I have my own for you: Why do people do complain like this? Is it always because they are so upset? Or maybe they want to get their own way? Perhaps they want to try and put someone off? Maybe they are even laying a track? Admins are supposed to know these 'ins and outs'.
I'm still dipping in here to make a last edit to Alzheimers, and then I'm out (and I won't have time to do it now, so I'll have to come back). You have sprung from nowhere to block me - and you are have consistently made errors: How could you read and remove a personal comment about me by an IP below (I would have left it – it spoke volumes) without noticing a comment by Jack Forbes directly above it? You are hardly the only game player on WP - my problem is that I'm congenitally honest, and too-often Wikipedia is a mug’s game. I feel really ashamed I've spent so much of my time in here, given that so little happens on so many articles.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Matt, here's what happened. I visited your talk page because I was going to leave you a message about the current goings on at Talk:British Isles. I saw the conversation between you and Jack Forbes. I considered warning you about it, but I also saw that you'd been warned for a number of other things (rightly or wrongly) in the past, and that you claimed to have a good knowledge of Wikipedia policy. That, and your editing history at Talk:British Isles, led me to three conclusions: (1) You knew that personal attacks are wrong and went ahead anyway, thus rendering a warning obsolete; (2) Your edits had been becoming more and more heated and more and more personal in nature, indicating that you needed to cool off; (3) you've carried out other policy violations in the past, knowing exactly what you were doing, and carried on until you were warned but stopped just short of the line where further action would take place - a textbook example of gaming the system. As a result I had little option but to instigate a block. With hindsight, 48 hours was probably too long, but you had ample opportunity to contest it. My next move was to visit Jack Forbes' talk page - my very first visit to that page - to warn him about his conduct and suggest that he also takes a break to calm down. When I got there, I saw a message that he'd just posted announcing his retirement from the project. So I left a message urging him to reconsider, just as I did when I saw you make a similar decision. Yes, Jack chose to return from retirement (and of course I noticed that when I removed the IP's attack) but that doesn't make his decision to retire any less real. I still hope you will also choose to carry on. That's what happened - now please stop calling me a liar and acting as if you've been penalised for doing nothing wrong. Also, if you wish to continue to complain about the block, please do it through the proper channels; bickering here is pointless. Waggers (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How can I carry on? It is almost surreal for you to say that. I have never "deliberately stopped short" of any line - how can you sit by your computer and say that too? You see, it's just a personal stab by you - it does not have concrete value - it's just a negative supposition: In fact, this is all your opinion. What did I do to deserve your arrival? I have spent bloody hours of my life trying to improve this encyclopedia - 'gaming' is a disgraceful judgement by you - as grossly unfair as the crimes you listed with your block decision. The 'worse' thing I've ever done on Wikipedia is try and get people interested in "Association" in the "Football in" articles during an RM poll - which was always going to be called canvassing by some: but it was no crime in itself - it was just better being done before the vote. Wikipedia really should discourage closed shops, and if you are really concerned about 'gaming' - look at when certain editors are suddenly concerned with cross-article "consistency", and then follow their tracks.
If you considered warning me, and didn't because other editors have recently complained to me - then you are simply not performing your job properly. YOU, an ADMIN, should warn me - you can't use the complaints of people I'm in disagreements with! FFS man! You have simply supported all the recent editors I've been in discussion with by drawing on them the way you have for your block. Can't you see that?
I can't face the last edit at Alz - this one now will be my last. I can and will say this is unethical and corrupt of you because this place was never a game to me - Wikipedia IS real life. Innocent people read it - not play inside it - but innocently read it. Adults too, not just kids. People here have laughed when I've said that - I wonder if you are an editor who fails to see that, or one who knows it all too well. There are simply too many admins who just don't understand the importance of this place. You have completely flattened me here anyway - whichever way I have looked at it (I can't see an appeal being given any credence - you are just fobbing me off there) - and I can't see either a fair or a manageable future, so to hell with you. I've never expected gratitude from this place - but thanks for nothing. -Matt Lewis (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For anyone interested

I read through my conversation with Jack Forbes again. It began elsewhere, but he duplicated a paragraph above and it carried on in here. Apart from possibly the ‘F' word (but why would I swear unprovoked?) I would not change a single word that I wrote. So the clear question arises: Where does that leave me with WIkipedia? This is the rub, you see - I have merely been my honest self. I couldn't face challenging the judgement - I want to make edits, not go through painful bureaucracy like that. It strikes me that contesting it would put other admins in a rather invidious position too: people really shouldn’t be blocked for arguments like this! If you read the argument, Jack in the end tried to return my accusation on me, then I ended it and he ran elsewhere. It just makes me cringe. Contesting the block but finding more support would have been extremely unpleasant. I can see why some admins sympathetic to my case may have seen problems removing it now it is done, and there are far too many weak admins on Wikipedia - far far far too many. There should be a serious refresher course for all of them on the importance of mediation, the need to rise-above your subject-related POV, and on the need to spend reasonable time on decisions. I’m guessing that it’s currently the 'thing' on Wikipedia to explore incident-blocking without Warning for ‘notorious’ characters. But me though?

The nature and wording of this block has made a future here impossible for me, even in Wales, an article I openly planned to spend a lot of time on. I feel nothing but handicapped now when I think of it how to do it. Maybe I simply should have got around to archiving my Talk page – I don’t know. Admins MUST realise that Warnings from admins are obviously taken seriously and ‘officially’ – whereas pseudo-officious warnings from ‘Disagreeing Joes’ are very often not. You just cannot consider them as having equal significance. I've had warnings from IP's and sock-users! Do they count against my name? I have been disagreeing with people who have the strongest of opinions - and none of this has been taken into account. Perhaps my big mistake is that I never throw out Warnings and counter-Warnings myself - I simply use my voice. I've never been tough with anyone who isn't already playing a particular game - 'taking offense' in various ways is merely part of their hand - but all too-often it comes up trumps for them.

Tipping point

My leaving is not simply about the 48 hour block - I suppose in other circumstances I would have used it to carry on research something in this case. I’m leaving because I simply cannot change myself to fit the mould enforced by people like Waggers - to a very small degree yes, but nowhere near what would be needed by me now - it simply can't be done. And for a while it has seemed clear to me that it is just not the climate on Wikipedia for editors like myself. So much of what is stuck and guarded here needs to be fought against, but I feel handicapped anyway in being someone who fights my own ground. It’s all about cliques and cabals - even in places as important as MEDMOS. It’s a numbers game (I don't mean consensus, but cliques) – a giant headcount: a place where new people 'being bold' are admonishingly told to “TALK FIRST!!”. Some editors build a fortress in the Talk pages, and you need to stay with them forever not to scroll out of view ineffectual and forgotten. It's so often a war of attrition - and the younger editors with more time on their hands tend to win. Was Wikipedia always this unwelcoming - or has it just been going this way? In fact, is Wikipedia sliding downwards under an increasing weight of poor adminship (for whatever reasons that may be?)

I feel a 'tipping point' for me has occurred, and my own time at Wikipedia has come to an end. If I stay I'd I will always have to check my edits and comments (and even my back) to stop from getting in trouble: it's as much myself as Wikipedia - though in reality I am nothing but a helpful person! I need to feel some freedom - I cannot see myself getting it from now on. Some people are also becoming too ‘chatty’ about me personally (ie not strictly about my edits - although particular biases have much to do with it) - that kind of stigma is no help to me at all, or to Wikipedia in general. Without seeming harsh, is this place really supposed to be a “community”? (as someone calls it above)? – we are all humans for sure, but I don’t remember ever reading that in policy? So I'm fine with leaving - I'll just try not to have nightmares about what a bad force WP can be! It was sheer negative fear that first brought me here – this place can indeed change the word imo: for the worse.

Just some experiences: The majority of the articles I've contributed to have involved real battles to get somewhere that is compliant to Wikipedia’s demands. Sometimes I've helped find it, sometimes I've got nowhere – you certainly can’t win them all, but I’ve usually been prepared to be gritty (it's not a crime!). I generally don't takes things too much to heart - I generally simply care: and why not? Why else bother being here? Introductions have probably been my main interest (it's all some people read), and at least I've helped improve a good few. Experience showed me early on that you simply have to fight for things at times: if anyone disagrees, look at the Intro to Alzheimer's before yesterday: that was fought for (in structure and content) over a period, and had for a long time settled down with a genuine (though always only ‘current’) consensus. It has just yesterday, alas, been made 'more concise' by someone (bad timing or what) - so it is at the moment very staccato to read. In my opinion, this change could (and probably will) now open the door to further re-writes - initially to make the text flow, then ambiguous facts, hard-to-shorten detail, too-technical jargon, and controversial statements will all soon appear. But what can I say? The Alz Lead was an asset to WP for a good while, and if we were all cowards Wikipedia simply would not have had it. I may decide to give that one article one last edit if someone doesn’t give me another 48 hours block for speaking my mind.

After my first stint on Wikipedia in 2006, I was so cheesed-off by someone (long since banned) that I didn't come back here for a whole year! I suppose I’ve been strong-willed from that re-start. I would guess that most people like myself cannot maintain it forever: there is that structural-weakness-bolstered 'tipping point' where it just becomes impossible. Unfortunately Wikipedia is currently more suited to IPs, sock-users and POV-text protectors than it is to actual positive editors - so-much still needs ironing out. It might be so flabby now that nothing can be ironed out, and it will just bloat and get progressively worse. Concerned people need to look back upon the more central policies and guidelines. What is stopping progress?

Just some observations: An increasing amount of editors and admins are being very negative about simple 'edit exchanges'. Some are, I expect, well-meaning slightly conservative people from amongst the many Wikipedians who rarely write the prose - but many now are cynically taking free hop-on rides on this - seriously foolish - bandwagon. These anti-editors often fail miserably to AGF by pre-judging 'edit exchanges' to be edit wars. Edit wars in themselves are not always the evil they are made out to be either: sometimes they are the only things that show the state of play. There is a ubiquitous member on Wikipedia that most of us know, who I really wish would take this to heart. Is dead-page discomfort really better than movement and life? And life here is ultimately about the English language - the largest and surely the greatest language in the world. Nobody can write anything that is really important in one draft. We must ask ourselves: why is x editor so against using words? We must ask that question! And appropriating words from citations SHOULD NOT be the preferred way to go. I've seen some seemingly-respected editors insisting on this cited-word-appropriation (like at Autism - a very overrated FA) - to the absolute detriment of the article! "But the reference clearly says..."! Heavens above! Are we not allowed to use our brains to VERIFY AND WEIGH-UP ourselves? Is it that ugly to use quotation marks - even if it's the best way through? We are an encyclopedia for Pete's sake! But some very unskilful editors (or small groups of editors) are treated with reverence: their awkward (even confusing) edits and reverts are supported across Projects and MOS's and their articles with unthinking dedication, it seems. The 'cabal' element on the editing side really is unpleasant: it may well protect much (for good and bad), but it does the very opposite of advancing the encyclopedia.

Anyway, I'll be back to change my user page when I'm allowed to, and that's it. I’m going to leave it partly-intact, and may add a couple of extra points about WP I never got around to putting up! Why not? I only need to add the right template, I would guess. Out of Wikipedia, I am always able to increase my income in a self-employed capacity, and am planning to go back to that. Regards, Matt.

ONE LAST NOTE ON BRITAIN: I am Welsh. Legally and culturally, whether anyone likes it or not (myself included) I am British too. It's like comparing a birth-child with a child by marriage - NOBODY has the right to tell me I should love above the other – or to demote the British side of me, whether to my face, or via articles on Wikipedia. We are not all ‘pure of blood’ (far from it) – and some of us have more worthwhile concerns in life. Despite what some have foolishly said (how can you gun for something that already exists?), nobody here knows what I really feel about being British. Some other English-readers might not realise that Britain actually still exists after reading some areas of Wikipedia! People want independence from it - fine - but it SHOULD NOT BE PROPAGATED IN THIS ENCLOPEDIA. I have also heard some nasty 'racism' (for want of a better word) on Wikipedia against "you British": it generally gets passed by. My suggestion to Wikipedians would be wise up: and don't let people blur periods in the past with the present - not on any level.

I may as well add my position on Britain: On one hand I would quite like to see independence (more for Scotland, I'm a bit less sure about Wales in terms of actual success - and many intelligent people believe both would makes us weaker), but on the other hand I believe that a world without the word-famous Anglo-Celtic (and settler too) ‘symbiosis’ of Britain (which has given the world much) will be immeasurably weaker: the world simply needs us strong, not split-up and weakened. The UK gov may have un-democratically backed the USA gov in their recent wars (which meant so much to the Bush-unsure Americans at the time) - but having such a Right-wing 'party' usurp our Left was always going to be short-lived thing: a hung parliament at the next election is highly possible - and our status in the future can (and surely will) rise again. Even now we are hardly a small fish! The UK is here (whether some people like it or not) and in my opinion will be needed in this world. Millions across Britain (and the wider world too) believe in what we have - the UK. The literal and cultural 'cross-breeding' accross the whole of the British Isles has been so fantastically successful I find it madness to be anti-British because of events in the past. The vast majority of people in Britain and Ireland are not anti-British in the slightest - but this encyclopedia consistently reflects the wishes of those who are, and of those who wish to promote their own country's independence.

I can honestly say that my above opinion has not adversely effected a single edit or suggestion of mine, in any of the articles and Talks where the subject of nationality has often been so crudely highlighted. My contributions here have all been fair and weighted, showing both sides, even when things like Introduction-notability are seriously in question. They have always been (or tried to be) properly guideline-based in their wording and structure. I have also, sometimes uniquely on this subject, written compromises into my prose - even if a factual inaccuracy or two may possibly have popped up. With me, Wikipedia has always come first. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If wikipedia really comes first for you then stay. It matters not what you think of me if you find it that important. Should I have gone to admins and complained about you! Perhaps not. Don't get me wrong, I'm still pretty pissed off with you, but if you stay I will avoid your talk page like the plague. Lets not get too deep into how all this started, but by all accounts you are a good contributer, so don't cut off your nose to spite yourself. If you stay I ask only one thing, don't pre-judge any of my comments or opinions, let me edit or give my opinions withought accusations. As I said, it does not matter what you think of me, just get on with your job of making a good encyclopedia Jack forbes (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank God for this. The most POV pushing, argumentative editor has called it a day! He always fought his own opinions and attacked editors rather than discussing neutral facts; always to the detriment of this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is now a better place.193.203.139.65 (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -