User talk:Matt57/Archive 7

Offer to unblock

If you agree not to discuss or refer to Bali or Giano for the next six months for any reasons, I will unblock you. This is a strict offer that includes the implicit provision that you cannot reinstate the diff chart you had on your userpage as that is a reference to them. Otherwise the block will remain. MBisanz ^talk 19:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

About the user page diff, fine, that I can accept. I wont put that in again. Thats a small issue. But I dont like being told that I cant talk about Giano or Bali for 6 months because I believe I have a right to do that in a civil way if I want to (freedom of speech), so no, I cant accept that part of the offer, sorry. If thats a necessary (and unfair in my opinion) condition you have I'll let the block expire. After the block expires I reserve the right to talk about Giano or Bali or any other editor for that matter in a civil way. My block was excessive in any case and the blocking admin probably did not take the time to see that what I was saying was a POINT issue and not a CIVIL issue. So yea, whatever you guys want to do. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh unblock him, why deprive him of the opportunity to slag me off and misconstrue what I say, beleive and do. It seems that has become the national sport and right of all Wikipedians who cannot make their names in any other way. I am quite capable of defending myself and frequently do! Even the great Jimbo joins in the fun so why deprive the humble Matt57? So long as Bali agrees, I have no objection to this editor being released back into the wild.  Giano  19:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I do. The above comment shows he doesn't get the reason for the block, thus it hasn't prevented anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You made a good block, but it won't hold - so one must cut one's losses. Ever heard of the expression "give 'em enough rope.."  Giano  19:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have, see WP:ROPE. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If the condition is that I cant talk about Bali or Giano, then I will let the block expire. I will not allow myself to be censored from talking about any editor in a civil way. Giano, as to who is wrong here, maybe you remember this comment on your talk page from Jimbo himself. I blame Jimbo for not doing the needful and taking care of civility issues here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo does get rather confused, I would not set to much store by that, or others may drag out more diffs, which will result in the exhumation of corpses left best buried. No problem to me, but others may find it distasteful.  Giano  20:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider this fair warning: if you continue to use your talk page to make passive aggressive remarks to other editors, regardless of your opinion of them, I will revoke your access to it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm done. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think pulling out 3 year old Jimbo v. Giano diffs helps your cause I second that.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Matt57 -

I have said some of this elsewhere, but to repeat it here - what you're trying to do, to enforce our civility policy, broke that policy very very badly.

To add to that: You are acting like you're the wounded party here, but 95% of the actual civility abuse in this case is stuff you have done in the last couple or three days.

I appreciate that you want the site to be more civil and polite, but this is not the way to do it. You absolutely must - not sorta must, not negotiably must, but absolutely must stop this, or your career here is over.

You may not have understood what you were doing or how it was coming across. Please understand it now. You reached out and went past pushing buttons into slugging people. Can't have it. Gotta stop.

It's fine if it stops by you understanding and behaving ok going forwards. I would much prefer that. But it has to stop.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a little bit of good faith. 1) My career here is likely over in any case: however this block ends or whatever happens, I can say for sure Matt57's editing activity will be drastically reduced or may just eventually stop soon and people who don't like me will be happy to hear that. I'm proud to have done the work that I did here. 2) Yes I should have handled it differently, you're right. I thought if those people aren't being blocked for being uncivil, how could I while trying to make a point. Turns out I was wrong. 3) To repeat again, I will reserve the right to talk about any editor in a civil way. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the ANI and some people worrying over the 7 days/6 months thing. Ok, I wont talk about Giano and Bali in that I wont create a fuss over them in ANI in any way. I know it will go unresolved in any case, that I know for sure so I wont do it to begin with. I also wont be contacting them directly - there you go. This I'm willing to do on my own will and not under any conditions and whether the block goes now or just expires (that doesnt matter to me). Is that something that relieves you guys now? This is not some sort of unblock request but to let you guys know that you can calm down and relax: I have no future plans of stirring up any Giano/Bali related storms. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What you've agreed to here is good enough for me. You're unblocked. AniMate 03:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My loved ones

If you ever mention my loved ones I will leave no stone unturned in seeking resolution to your insults, do the project and yourself a favor and retire. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

For christs sake rob, put a goddamn cork in it. I was also quite opposed to the comment made, but it is retracted, he is unblocked and this situation is over. He has asked you to stop posting here, so please, stop kicking the dead horse and go find something better to do. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, the profanity wasn't helpful. However, Rob, I agree with the thrust of Tarc's comment. Mistake made, mistake retracted. I think he understands clearly that if he does it again it would be bad. Kicking him more over it is not appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Dont know why you're so angry Rob, ok, I wont mention your loved ones or anyone else's for that matter. Sorry. I was kidding, I never meant any of that as I said. I have mentioned on my user page now that I have retired basically, and will not be doing any regular editing, only if its really necessary and even that I might just try to forget about. Hope that makes you happy. What else do you want me to do? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I was a bit upset and defensive, I love my family so much. I appreciate your comments here and have struck mine, I do take it back, you appear to honestly regret saying it and I fully accept that., It is sometimes not what we do with our actions but how we learn and grow from them. Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Black Stone

My comment is about the article about the black stone.

I happen to be Muslim, and i happen to trust and respect (those words may be used in the past tense after seeing your reply) Wiki enough that when i wanted to do some research on my own religion, i clicked on Wiki to find out about the black stone and its history in my religion.

As i scroll down the page what do i see but a picture of our prophet (pbuh) who we Muslims hold in extremely high regard.

There is the common sense fact that 98.5% of people looking at the page must be Muslim in the first place, i say this as i am unaware of the name or existence of any jewish relic of some sort or christian relic which can be compared to the stone in order that i would be inclined to search for information on it, therefore i cant suddenly imagine hundreds or thousands of non-Muslim people to suddenly realise that there is a black stone in the Kaaba in Mecca and look it up on Wikipedia.

You are aware of the public problems caused by this type of action and what a stir the subject of pictures of the prophet (pbuh) creates, whilst i do not condone any of the extreme actions taken by some over the matter, i would definitely consider editing/taking the picture down and informing you of what you are doing by leaving it there.

It is very very insulting to Muslims for somebody to draw an image of our prophet (pbuh) you must understand, and ultimately, the picture serves absolutely no purpose in that it adds any value to the description of the stone or the article.

If you are to weigh up its purpose for being there, against the insult that is definitely caused to some people that see it, you would realise that it is clearly not sensible to put such a thing up.

By leaving the picture up you are trying to say 'look at me, i am protecting the idea of free speech which nobody can take away from me and leaving this image on the page serves as a testimony to the fact' when in fact, you are just insulting people for no purpose whatsoever, and saying 'hey look at me, in the guise of, or me thinking that i am, protecting editorial integrity itself and the idea of free speech, i am insulting a vast number of people by placing an image in an article that adds arguably zero value to the article, and is not and never was a critical part of the subject of the article'

Please leave it off the page...

86.21.103.180 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC) peace and love

I CANT BELIEVE IT, you have done the same thing in the article about the 'Kaaba' (my comments were about seeing the picture in the article about 'the black stone') and placed the picture there too.

Now it is very obvious that you are just putting it up there to insult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.103.180 (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not censored...

I noticed your recent edit at Talk:Kaaba. It occurred to me that some of the boxes at the top of Talk:Muhammad might be useful? I suspect one of them could be tweaked to point to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad, as well.

Incidentally, and I really haven't looked into this (and I really don't want to get dragged into it either!), but is there a particular image that's of concern?

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 21:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Its this one. It should be ok, people revert them most of the time. Maybe I'll put the red box warning there too. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to see how the image could be replaced, to be honest. I understand where the objectors are coming from, but WP:NOTCENSORED... TFOWR^propaganda 11:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Matt57. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
Message added 03:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mootros (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Matt57. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
Message added 15:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mootros (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

hello matt

well I just wanted to say hi!!

--NäTäLï3 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldplayporta (talk • contribs)

ok... hello! and who is this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Matt57. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
Message added 13:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Taha Hussein

Matt, do you speak Arabic? Have you read any of Taha Hussein's works??? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 17:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• You got it all wrong. I don't take orders from you. I can change anything I want on Wikipedia. I am in fact working on translating some relevant stuff pertaining to Taha Hussein, out of good faith and kindness, not because you have any right to tell me what to change and what to keep! It's also laughable that a guy like you who has never read Hussein's works comment on the notability of his critic of Islam! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 17:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

avraham sinai

thanks for the heads up on the edit, i've posted something on talk so we can discuss it there. Just adding the tag back to bring other editors to the need to discuss this.Lihaas (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Midas Records Nashville

You might want to look at the AFD. I found a handful of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this policy

WP:NOTOR? In an article of logic related topic, simple logical reasoning is not OR like 1+1=2. Choosing not to do something is different from cannot do something, this is a very simple straight forward logic. Also, the rest of that paragraph is simply a rewritten part of the City of God from the same article. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 00:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Illegal licensing on File:Canon PowerShot A95 - front and back.jpg

Hello Matt,

I noticed File:Canon PowerShot A95 - front and back.jpg in the Digital camera article and thought I recognised the original images as being created by User:Fir0002.

When checking the image page however I saw that you had claimed ownership, claimed to be copyright holder, and changed the licensing. NONE of this is OK. Not only is it unethical, you are also breaking the licensing terms.

I am going to update this file with the correct information, but notice that it has been up for almost two years like this.

If you have done similar things with other images can you please go back and fix them all ASAP.

Thanks, --jjron (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Original image says "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document", do whatever you like, I'm ok with it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

check image

File:Check from terrorist organization HLF to Islamic organization CAIR.jpg is very interesting but it does not say where it came from? do you know the source? thank you! Decora (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Islamic Research Foundation. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Sana al-Sayegh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sana al-Sayegh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sana al-Sayegh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mccapra (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to visit discussion topic

First round of discussion about 'Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?' in relation to Wikipedia article titles has been initiated at some article talk pages, including @ Talk:List of former Muslims#Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?

You are being informed of the discussion, since its seems you have edited related topic previously.

Please do join in discussions, Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Faith freedom international -screenshot.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Faith freedom international -screenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Edina Leković for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Edina Leković is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edina Leković until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)