User talk:Matt57

Archives: --1-- --2--

Organization of British ex-Muslims

The organization has 25 founding members and an unknown number of additional members. It is not significant enough to warrant a section on the Islam in the United Kingdom page. If you were to add a section for every group with so few members or impact on the general British Muslim population the article would be endless.

If such a section is added to the Islam in the United Kingdom article then equally sections on apostacy, scularism and athiesm added to the British Jews article and Church of England article. Please do not try to threaten me or taint the Wikipedia project with your Athiest extremist point of view.

Articles that are counterparts on the same subject such as Religion do matter. Wikipedia cannot be seen to be or actually be bias as it will destory the credibility of the whole project. While this organization has been heralded in the media its impact on the actual British Muslim community has been neglible as its numbers suggest. The Sufi Muslim Council also is notable but it does not have its own section and is only mentioned in the Political organisations and pressure groups section. Feel free to add the Organization of British ex-Muslims to the latter section.

I do not have the verifiable data or information on apostacy, scularism and athiesm in the Jewish and Christian communities of Britain and would not attempt to make the needed and factual changes without doing so.

From Muhammad to Elonka

Matt, I do respect your interpretation. What I ask you to suppose is that other Wikipedians might conclude one policy weighs a little heavier and another a little lighter. It's one thing to jettison WP:CENSOR and AFD the pornography articles (or compromise with those who do). I've stood very firm against that impulse - whatever topic is at hand - and if I thought that were operating with Elonka I'd be as opposed to this nomination as you are.

When I put Daniel Brandt's and Seth Finkelstein's biographies up for deletion I asked people to tip the consensus scale a bit lighter on WP:V and heavier at WP:BLP. I did my best to clarify exactly how far that would go - to give a reasoned basis for the request - and consensus did shift. I don't recall whether you agreed with me on that one or not, but you may know Daniel Brandt repaid me by adding my username to his "Hive Mind" page, which was poor sportsmanship to say the least. But I don't regret asking the community to weigh that balance. And I don't think I was breaking WP:V on that scale.

At Joan of Arc (who in some odd ways is a good parallel to Muhammad when you think about it) I dealt with an opposite challenge: a strongly Catholic POV dominated the article throughout, and as a reflection of that nearly all of the images were devotional portraits when I began editing. That really didn't convey very much to the reader because the only actual portrait she sat for was lost in the fifteenth century. So I found a photo of the house where she was born (it still stands) and a period map of France and the ruin of the castle where she met the king of France, a fortification from one of her battles, an actual portrait of the king she crowned, and a photo of the cathedral where the coronation took place. I even added an image of her signature. And that approach - I am absolutely certain - was more informative and more NPOV. That page page got featured in part through those efforts so maybe I'm onto something? Durova^Charge! 23:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you're having to deal with criticism of Elonka. I feel you shouldnt. You should nominate and let her go. People who deserve to be an admin find it no problem defending themselves at an RfA (well first they dont let people find anything to criticize about). Then if she can be a good admin, believe me its her who should be writing the responses you wrote above. Instead if you look at her RfA, she's not responding to people much as if she doesnt care. Not caring is what I saw at the Kaab article too. She wanted her way, thats it. Good admins work with people and listen and talk to them and show a genuine concern. That was exceptional stuff then you did at the Joan of Arc, you went out of your way literally to get the pictures and improve the article. We already had the images for Kaaba. The last thing we needed is something coming and trying to get those images out and as Beit Or put it so succintly: "An admin should know better than arguing for the removal of images as Elonka did on Talk:Kaaba. The community cannot entrust the tools to an editor for whom someone's sentiments trump policy.", but really you shouldnt feel you have to defend Elonka. Its she who should stand up for everything she's done and said. Its possible to have a great sense of judgement and rationale. Here's one RfA that passed with flying colors recently. If you look at this user's contribs, she has an excellent sense of judgement and rationale and I supported her, so its not that I'm hammering everyone. So again, these were historic images like no other and in short, policy was overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the images. CENSOR applies very strongly. UNDUE applies very weak. Having images of Muhammad around is now not a minority affair anyway because of Muhammad cartoons being printed everywhere. So UNDUE applies very weak.

Its all there on her talk page. If she becomes an admin, you can be sure as one user put it, she's one admin that might need to be de-sysopped and therefore, why go through the trouble. She's a good editor and all, but being an admin requires solid rational thinking in the right direction. Thats not what I saw happening in Kaaba. It was all wrong. She was trying to make people happy I think and it back fired. One should do the right thing, no matter what. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what? I'm serious about the offer I made in my conomination. I hope I never need to make good on it and I don't think I will, but bear it in mind. Regards, Durova^Charge! 15:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you had to make that kind of safety route just in case, its not safe. A person should be an admin if no one could even dream of them getting an rfc. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tabercil

I notice you did strike your oppose to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giggy. Could you also do so for Tabercil? It probably won't affect him passing, but it will make the difference between merely passing, and passing unanimously, which, I humbly submit, might be a nice thing. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thank you! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Top level article

Hi there. Can you tell me what a 'top level article' is and where I can find policy on top level articles in Wikipedia, especially as regards categorisation ? TIA. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question. I have been trying to clear up the Islam category page for a while and have only just got round to completing that task. The articles that I have kept, I chose very judiciously. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that WP page and it says nothing about which articles should be placed in the top level category page. The only reason I want List of Islamic terms in Arabic in the Islam cat page is that it is one of the main things that users of WP will want to look at; exactly the same argument goes for Portal:Islam. Using your argument, if the former is removed, then so should the latter. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think its justified, sounds good to me. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka's RfA

You seem pretty solidly against Elonka's adminship and this is of course perfectly fine. However, this is going way overboard. Please assume good faith and remember to keep a cool head when expressing your thoughts. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That advice came from the heart. If she really did say sorry to people, it would all be over. She should have went for a Editor review before standing up for another RfA to make sure she was in the right place before doing an rfa, especially that she'd had problems before. I think she just doesnt care. If she did, she would make amends. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I reverted that last addition. This is completely uncalled for. A couple of editors have already told you to cool down. As I said, I don't mind you opposing Elonka but civility is paramount and you seem to have lost track of it. Pascal.Tesson 02:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly will not get into an edit war over this. But I stand by my initial evaluation that your tone on Elonka's RfA is grossly inappropriate and that your point could be made without it. Pascal.Tesson 03:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime sock?

Hi Matt, can you please use your Kirby nose and have a sniff at [1] this dude? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirby nose, hehe. Kirbytime wasnt able to do a cleanup job like that one. If it involves actually writing anything, he couldnt have done that. But its a sock of someone alright. The way he removed a link to Allegations of Israeli apartheid and replaced it with Anti-Arabism, I would have reverted his edit on the basis of just that. Keep talking to him. Maybe he's reverting to someone else's earlier version. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

regarding edits to Islam/suicide articles

WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source, and certainly not a reliable source for attributing statements to the Pentagon. ITAQALLAH 18:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That article is mostly OR. This has a video of a sheikh saying suicide bombings are OK in Islam. Also someone who is being supported by tax dollars essentially says the same thing here. Arrow740 20:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

and there are plenty of others- the majority, in fact- who say otherwise. regardless, are you claiming that WND is a reliable source or not? ITAQALLAH 21:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For criticism, yes. For statements of fact, generally not. A critic's statements about facts used to further an argument would fall in the former category. Arrow740 21:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

extremist, unscholarly sources aren't "reliable sources" for "criticism". ITAQALLAH 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are labeling them as such indicates that they are probably notable critics. Arrow740 22:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Matt57

Hello. I am RS2007. Why don't you want to became the administrator? I looked at your contributions and I think you have done a great job. Best of luck! RS2007 13:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Chigs image

I don't have the second image. It was uploaded by User:Q Original, not by me. Anyway: User:Matthew (coincidence of your names is... fascinating) first broke 3RRR.LexingtonDark 11:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Dunin edit

In this edit, where you remove information for not having sources, you actually removed several sources.

• "The paper was first presented at the ARS 17th Annual Meeting and Space Flight Exposition in Los Angeles, in November 1962, and published in the AIAA Journal in March 1964." That's a source, the AIAA Journal, March 1964.
• [2] was an embedded link. That's another source. (It's apparently moved to [3], looking at the Internet Archive.) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone who presents a paper in that journal is notable. The other link has nothing on Dunin. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not my point; you'll notice I didn't say a word about whether the subject is notable or not. If you believe the person isn't notable enough for an article, the way to show that is to nominate the article for deletion, not to delete information from their article. Not every bit of information in an article has to individually suffice to make the person in the article notable or be deleted, merely the sum of it. The second link seems to be referring to his company. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, my point is that you deleted sources from the article. Please restore them, and the sourced information. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the right way is to first place a {{notability}} tag in an article, so people are given some time to establish notability if it exists. You're an admin. How come you dont know this? We need multiple 3rd party non-trivial reliable sources in order for the article to stay. I want to give people the time to find those sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of importance to restore there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect, there is no such tag in the article. And it doesn't seem appropriate to remove those sources that do exist, if your goal is to encourage people to find more. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Elonka to respond about all this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I suspected it might be that, but didn't want to assume bad faith. This should be about the article, not about your relations with any particular editor. Deleting information in order to get a specific editor to respond is called disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. If you want Elonka to respond, post on her talk page, not on an encyclopedia article. Reverting, and cautioning you to be more careful. If you want to delete unsourced content, don't delete the sources along with it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

?? What are you doing? You didnt have to restore all the information. You're being disruptive by putting back unsourced information. Please dont do that again. Dont put back unsourced OR back into the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You think its okay to create 8 new articles about my family members and write about what they do in their spare time and who they married and how many kids they had and where they worked? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said a word about your family members, and don't intend to, since I don't know who you are. If you're William Wales or Marlon Jackson then having 8 articles about your family members would be easily appropriate. If you're asking me about Stanley Dunin specifically, I'm not sure if he meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). But it's not a speedy delete, there's certainly some assertion of notability. However that wasn't my point, which was deletion of sourced information. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much more careful. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Aol Vandal

Where did you found that His excellency was the parent sock of the AOL vandal that has been vandalizing the same Canadian Conservative-opponent politician articles for several weeks. If it's the case, then this is important for sock reports. I was trying to found the main puppeteer for weeks. I've tought that User:Aol Worker was the main puppet. Thanks again.--JForget 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I was guessing from the fact that he's had other IP's in virginia before ([4]) and the way he suddenly comes and edits Islam related articles. If that politician has nothing to do with Islam, it might be someone else. But you're the head quarters may be in the same location while the sock puppet might be in a different location.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. Best wishes, Elonka 03:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Dunin Articles - Vanity?

Hey, don't gut the articles. You can try AfD on some of the weakest ones. Also, run Google searches and see if other references exist. If they do, add them in good faith. Your opinion will carry a lot more weight if you do it the way I suggest. You reputation is a lot more important than whether these articles survive or not. Jehochman ^Talk 03:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeho, thanks, I'm waiting for Elonka's response on this before doing anything further. I did do a search for Antonin Dunin and found nothing on Google except references from Elonka. Yes I'll definitely try my best to justify inclusion before afd'ing any article because if people can find references easily, it'll reflect badly on the AfD. On many articles, I've not seen any non-trivial 3prd party references so lets see if anyone can find them. If they can be included, the unsourced OR has to go in any case. thanks for checking. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I will support AfD on at least two of these articles if things remain as they are today. It's probably better to leave in all the content if AfD is the solution. If AfD fails, then they could be stubbed. Better to do that after everyone has a chance to look and a consensus emerges. Jehochman ^Talk 03:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, yea, I'll deal with one article at a time, giving it plenty of time. Alright then, I'll look into leaving the content back before Afd'ing, if thats the right thing to do. I'll ask people around who have edited the articles in any way if they can find more sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: article leads don't need to be referenced (but can be). The lead summarizes the rest of the article. If the lead says something that is explained later on with a references, that is sufficient. Jehochman ^Talk 06:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks, got it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of Power

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Edina_Lekovic

Edina Lekovic

Since your article was substantially different, you may wish to simply talk to SV about having it undeleted rather than go through the entire DRV process. When in doubt, it makes more sense to talk to deleting admins before going through lengthy process. JoshuaZ 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if she'll listen to me but ok then I'll try. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I supported you at the DRV, but note that Image:Edina Lekovic-screenshot from CNN.jpg is almost certainly not Fair Use; it's just a picture to show what she looks like, and since she is living, and not reclusive, even showing up to give speeches and such, a free image clearly can be created. Have you tried just emailing her and asking for one? Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission is the official page, but User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content is advice from someone who is excellent at it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Edina_Lekovic-screenshot_from_CNN.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Edina_Lekovic-screenshot_from_CNN.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Edina Lekovic-screenshot from CNN.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Edina Lekovic-screenshot from CNN.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahmed Yassin

Are you talking about removing "Hamas is a terrorist organization" or "Antisemitism"? There are no sources for "Antisemitism".Bless sins 01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Your current campaign

Ok, you made your point (rabidly) on the RfA. Going around decimating articles claiming they're all unreferenced and original research is getting a bit pointy, don't you think? Please stop and consider that your actions aren't doing anything to help the project. Shell ^babelfish 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Please stop, Matt57. You are applying the wrong standards. Most of these people are not living, so the standard for including facts is "reference-able" not "referenced." - Jehochman ^Talk 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So can I make up a page for a dead "John Tree" and put in OR there? I dont think so, right? You guys need to stop being bodyguards of Elonka or her family articles.

Now: do you have any problems with the OR I deleted at Antoni Dunin? If so, I'll see you there on the talk pages. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope - notice I didn't revert that because I don't believe the information was contained in the references in that case. I'm working on some research atm to see if any references for that information can be found - things from Poland before WWII can be difficult at best though :( Shell ^babelfish 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What information did you bring back that was mentioned in the references? Make sure you guys read WP:V:

Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

So, dont bring in anything without providing a reference. If its difficult to find information on anything, it will be deleted. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted after discussion, no? ~ Riana ⁂ 02:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put in tags for some time now in some of the articles and no one came to put in references. Elonka too choose to completely ignore me when I asked her about what should be done about these articles she made. Its time for the articles or the OR to go. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing requirements

Matt, let me stress the following points:

1. Our policy does not require inline citation. It is totally acceptable to list the sources used to write the article at the end of it. Nowhere does it say each statement has to be individually referenced, just that there must be a source for it.
2. Print references are just as good as online ones. The fact that you are unable at this moment to look them up and read them is immaterial. Also, foreign language sources are acceptable even if you cannot understand the language they are in.

Please bear these points in mind which going about your aggressive campaign. WjBscribe 02:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont care if you're going to make allegations about my 'campaign'. So is your action to defend her articles needlessly a campaign (in fact you campaigned for her by creating her RfA). On to more important things: WP:V says if anything is challenged, it may be removed. You read that, right? Here you go again:

Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

There. What are the references saying? Nothing that we can see. The editor who put them in (Elonka) refuses to respond to my questions. I have no choice but to remove them as dubious, unreliable and most of all unverifiable. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say that those reliable sources have to be part of an inline citation. They can be validly added to the end of an article and the fact that you are unable at present to obtain a copy of the sources does not make then "unverifiable". Clearly all those publications could be obtained and checked for the information, therefore they are acceptable sources. WjBscribe 02:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So what if I made an article on "Johny Loonytree" and put a reference that said "Moon magazine 1432, issue #451" - what if I made a false reference, or a reference that really didnt talk much about Loonytee? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I could say "there is no such reference", but not without bothering to check first. Shell ^babelfish 02:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I have made no false references, please do not accuse me of such. --Elonka 02:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ive asked you many times about what we should do about your family articles - why did you not respond before Elonka? What do the references say? If you have the references, why dont you put them in? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I did not accuse you of false references. AGF. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So which sources reliability are you challenging? Can you give some details? Right now, all I see is you blindly removing content without bothering to check references. And for the record, your deletions showed up on the IRC vandal bot as possible vandalism, which got me looking - seeing your contribs and user page made me look further. Shell ^babelfish 02:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, as I've said multiple times, I am no longer involved in the editing of those articles. I have read them, and to my knowledge the information that is in those articles is both true and sourced. If you have a specific question about a specific fact, you are welcome to ask me, but right now you just seem to be wholesale deleting large chunks of information, which does not strike me as acting in good faith. I have also been concerned by the way that you seem to get focused on articles related to me, to the exclusion of anything else on Wikipedia. I recommend that you concentrate on working on multiple articles, not just Elonka-related ones. Other than that, I am not going to get involved. --Elonka 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes well, you dont have to do anything here. Your friends are willing to do anything to save your family articles. WP COI says, people cant put in information about their family members and 3rd party reliable sites must be provided. Thats the reply for you too, Shell. Elonka.com is not a reliable source for articles about Elonka's dad and mom. WP:COI says we need reliable 3rd party references. Since this was originally a COI issue where she wrote articles about her mom and dad and gave references from her personal site, why did you bring in back these invalid contestable contentious sources that violate WP:COI? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, why dont you start by telling me first why you didnt respond to my queries on your talk page for more than a week? And since you said I can ask you about any specific fact, all the articles are full of unreferenced unverifiable information. Why did you not put in these 3rd party references? Please start with Antoni Dunin. Rereferences to Elonka.com will have to go as per WP:COI. Every other statement will have to be referenced by 3rd party sources or I will remove it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, primary sources are perfectly acceptable for factual information. 3rd party sources have been added for claims outside of birth/death/children/birthplace factual type things. I also removed a number of statements from Antoni Dunin that were not basic fact - I'm sure Elonka knows where her grandfather was when he died, but I left that out for the time being. You also have to consider the time period and location you're dealing with here - you do know what happened in Poland to royal families and many others during WWII? As a side note, why are you so interested in Elonka's involvement if you feel the COI is so great a problem? Shell ^babelfish 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask for an RfC then. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you've now taken to using sockpuppet accounts to avoid the WP:3RR, I've taken the issue to ANI in the hopes of having some outside editors look at the situation. Please try continuing dispute resolution and discussing the issues instead of using methods that are only going to cause problems. Shell ^babelfish 04:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, lol. Thats not my sock puppet. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for violation of the three-revert rule on Antoni Dunin and various other articles through the use of obvious sockpuppets, MiiMiiMiiM and MiiMiiM. You may contest this block with {{unblock|your reason here...}}.--Chaser - T 04:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Checkuser cleared you. I also added a note to that effect in your block log. Cheers.--Chaser - T 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime.Proabivouac 03:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Another sock to block

MiiMiis (talk · contribs) - Please someone do a checkuser, this is His excellency for sure. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I must concur that this looks like a set-up; see [5]. That's not a credible slip-up.Proabivouac 04:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks P.! Good we got a Checkuser filed on me. Another sock of the id. His Excellency. Sure, I can wait until the CU results are out. I'm not editing a lot here anyway nowdays. Whoever you socks are, thanks for the laughs. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Chaser thanks for the unblock. Sure I'll wait for the RFCU results, I'm not in a hurry for those articles. As for my allegations I felt I was being attacked by everyone so I wondered whose sock it was and I've had problems with some of those editors, hence my suspicion. Now I see it was a sock puppet of David york which I suspected at first belonged to SlimVirgin because it came right around her edits. Ok well I retracted my comments. All these were just socks of previously banned users, not of any established users, I'm pretty sure now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for your cordiality.--Chaser - T 05:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Chaser. Can't blame you for making what seemed at first glance like an obvious call. Matt57 may seem a little monomaniacal on the Dunin articles (so he's been accused,) but in my experience, he's a lawful user and a straight shooter who would never play these kinds of games.

Matt57, neither Elonka, SlimVirgin nor Shell Kinney would have set you up like this. I'd guess WP has been pwnd once again by His excellency. We may find out soon enough.Proabivouac 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Crossing fingers

Matt, I sincerely hope the checkuser unearths a banned sockpuppeteer and clears you. I also hope this incident prompts you to reconsider your recent decisions. If someone did exploit this situation to get you blocked, they were able to succeed only because your actual edits made the socks look plausible. This doesn't mean you deserved that; far from it. Disruptive editors have occasionally impersonated me also. The best defense is to conduct oneself in a way that no one takes the hoax seriously.

As you know, I conominated Elonka's RFA and my input at the Muhammad images mediation reached a similar evaluation to hers. If that affects my opinions here it's purely unintentional. I have no desire to attack you. You're a good editor and once in a while anybody can get carried away. I'm looking for a helpful and nonconfrontational way to express that something went off track here and the important thing is to move in the right direction again. Durova^Charge! 05:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Well yes all I care about is the Elonka articles. I filed an RfC. I dont mind the block or Checkuser, stuff happens. Infact this has put me in a good light and will make an admin think twice before blocking me next time so what happened was the opposite of what the sock puppet (or online terrorist more accurately) wanted to happen. And I cant smile all the time if there's 10 people rushing in to revert my edits at Elonka's articles. They feel they have to defend their friend. Thats all there is to it. If it was any other article, no one would have bothered. As for me, I want to make sure unreferenced stuff doesnt stay in. Lets see what the RfC says. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you might want to modify, "Articles to clean up for Elonka" - it's considered poor form to single out editors from your userpage like this.Proabivouac 06:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the title. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My Signature

I dont agree with your assessment of my signature as "little too loud". I have read the policy & i dont find anything in my signature which violates it. Thanks. -- Đõc §aмέέЯ  02:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerns

Matt, I know I'm not in the best position to express this. My motives might be called into question, which is why I'm not acting. I do want you to know that more than one editor has contacted me privately - not knowing that others had done the same - and discussed the possibility of a user conduct WP:RFC on you. I will not initiate such an action. If one does open I may certify that I attempted to resolve the dispute and failed (noting the level of my own involvement, of course). I hope no such measure becomes necessary. You deserve to be aware that it's under discussion. Durova^Charge! 17:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeating here, I dont know what those concerns/disputes are, who the editors are and where they contacted me to solve the problem and failed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I treat e-mail as confidential by default. Look through the recent posts to this talk and related pages - they're among the names. If I thought these were unfair opinions I would discourage them and post in your support if RFC were to open. I freely acknowledge the potential for unintentional bias in my analysis. Yet, Matt, your actions and comments appear to proceed from an assumption that the people who disagree with you are acting out of bias. I see too many recent posts from established editors whose opinions I respect. Basically, please slow down and let the dispute resolution process address this. Durova^Charge! 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Formal notification to cease harassment

Okay Matt, you want something formal,[6] so here:

Matt, you are harassing me. You and I had a difference of opinion at Talk:Kaaba about a month ago, in early July. Shortly after that, you decided to oppose my nomination for adminship because of it.[7][8] This was of course your right, but then you further escalated, getting so involved in arguments at the nom,[9][10] that multiple other editors were telling you to back off.[11][12][13][14][15][16] Then after the nomination was over, you further escalated your actions, and are now pursuing revenge against me at a variety of locations, mostly focused on deleting or blanking articles about my relatives.[17][18] [19][20] A simple glance at your contribs (Matt57 (talk · contribs)) shows that this has been your primary activity for weeks now, working on "the Elonka articles."[21][22][23][24] And on the few other subjects that you're working on, you're getting complaints there too.[25][26]

Primarily though, you have been blanking articles about my relatives (going right up to the edge of 3RR),[27][28] or arguing at talkpages for removal of information, or you are forum-shopping and trying to bring other editors in to your cause.[29][30][31] You have also been mis-representing the situation in various venues, such as the thread on obituaries that you started at WP:BIO, where you tried to twist things to get a NY Times article discounted as an invalid source. Most editors disagree with your actions,[32][33][34] [35][36][37] even telling you that you are in violation of WP:POINT,[38][39][40] but you have been ignoring their good faith cautions. You cling to any single editor who offers even partial agreement, and then you discount everyone else disagreeing with you as "a large group of defensive editors."[41][42][43]

You've even created a section on your userpage, proving that you have a crusade against articles related to me.[44]

Matt, you need to stop. You have a clear conflict of interest on anything related to me right now. You have crossed the line into harassment. It's one thing to have a good-faith challenge to a piece of information, and it's another to specifically target a series of articles that are related to another editor with whom you've had a prior disagreement.[45] You have been told that there's a problem,[46][47] and asked to stay away from me,[48] and you have refused.[49][50] Further, this dispute has now extended to a deletion debate at the Commons, where you are continuing with bad faith accusations towards me.

Matt, please remove information about me from your userpage, please stop working on articles related to me, and please find something else to do on Wikipedia. I'd even be happy to work with you on some other subject. Just over the last few weeks alone, I've created or expanded several articles related to medieval Islamic history. Why not help me with one of them? Or check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Most wanted, where there are tons of redlinks... It would be very helpful to Wikipedia if you could even go through and create a few stubs here and there. Seriously, there is so much that needs doing on Wikipedia.... I find it helpful, each day that I do something on Wikipedia, to think, "Are my activities productive? Is this the best use of my time?" It is my recommendation that you ask yourself this question as well. Sincerely, Elonka 02:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Whats your real username?

I'm not certain what "H.E. id." means. The reason for multiple accounts is clearly explained on my user page: "Multiple accounts are necessary because of Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China and Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China." This account is for editing that might attract attention from the mainland authorities; I have another account for 'innocent' subjects. They are both real usernames. Thank you for your interest. Seektruthfromfacts 17:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)