User talk:Matt Lewis

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:

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 [1]), 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)

Ethnic info box

Hi - to understand a bit where I am coming from see say Italian Australian or Lebanese Australian - we don't want to go into the realm of anthems but to show the two national flags discretely seems OK and is a useful identifier. It isn't just Australian ethnic groups that use these - see also Lebanese American or Jamaican Canadian or Chinese Jamaican. If we start introducing anthems we open the potential forgetting too much into POV territory - does the anthem apply for the present or for when the bulk of people left the country and arrived in the other ... Regards --Matilda ^talk 01:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If it's too indiscrete, and would be too abused as an option, don't use it. Wikipedia is so flag heavy I can see they are not necessarily as emotive as an anthem. I expect that Acadians are more of a 'dispersed nation' than an ethnic group anyway. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Countries of the United Kingdom

Congrats on Countries of the United Kingdom. I have marked it as patrolled and I encourage you to expand it. Sincerely, ĤéĺĺвοЎ (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've stayed up to work on it (I'm actually in the UK!). --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the description country will be accepted at Northern Ireland. In my personal experiences with these 4 articles; I've often found Scotland as regularly being the resisting one. However, they already have country, so again I see no problems. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Who knows GD, you may get your consistency yet! Thanks for your quick support on the poll. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wales: destination of the intro pipe

I've decided to reply to all messages on my own talk page but that was after I got yours so I replicate the reply here: I would get the merge agreed then the changes will be automatic and not excite comment. Good news on getting the Constituent Countries stuff out by the way. I sense a unionist or anti-nationalist (they seem to be different groups) backlash building however. --Snowded (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - replying in your talk. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've changed the pipe link of "parts of" in the Wales article. Whilst I am sure it will end up being changed to that, assuming no big upsets in the poll going on, I do think this is a bit premature, as one of the main factors that led to the pipe going to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom was the presence of the table which provided numerous reliable sources for the different terms that could be used, and showed the dominance of "country" as the descriptor for most if not all of the bits of the United Kingdom. I really think it should be reverted until the change is made, and this is what I was referring to when I said that changes should be made one step at a time.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I discussed it with Snowded (as another long standing Welsh editor) first, and thought it was worth doing. The logic is that I wanted to do it, and thought it was best for the article. In waiting I felt we were creating a kind of unecessary 'bureaucratic stretch'. If it's reverted I'll leave it until after the poll. As the main information is already in the 'Countries of' article, I don't personally see the poll as a reason to wait. The poll is more about whether related information should be split between two articles as far as I'm concerned: countries of the United Kingdom is a common name. The google search is full of gov sites.

Also - one step at a time, yes. But what order? And how many know about this? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was specifically pointing to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom as a result of the informal mediation carried out by Keeper76, and one of the main reasons he provided was the presence of the table in the article. It was argued about and accepted after some discussions and I understood that it may well not be a good idea to change too much for a little while (and certainly not change something specifically mentioned in the informal mediation without a wider discussion.) I guess a useful stop-gap solution that would avoid any kind of reversion exchange might bbe to add the table to the Countries of the United Kingdom article straightaway, and I'll do that. It will help lessen any problems if they arise over the changed piped link.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be good. By the way, Keeper76 recommended the never-ideal "Subdivisions" pipe-link himself (nobody else seemed to know about it!) but I think he was brought in to mediate over the 'country/constituent country' argument, not specifically any link destination. I wasn't originally party to calling him (I came in towards the end), but the wording I have kept out of respect for the consensus found. (IMO, 'of' is now simpler than 'that is part of').

The two great benefits of the 'Keeper76 poll' was that a consensus came out of it, and 'country' was accepted as the initial definition, followed by a qualifier that could be piped: the best destination for the pipe was less of an debated issue (though it certainly needs to be agreed on). Necessary work then took place on Subdivisions (it was never ideal)... which naturally lead us to here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I called in Keeper76, and the table was both my idea as was placing it in the Subdivisions of the United Kingdom, as, at the time, it seemed to fit there given the other stuff in the article at the time. I think it would be better off now in Countries of the United Kingdom, anyway.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

British Isles usage

Welcome back to the British Isles usage dispute of Wikipedia. If you can find a solution to it, you'll have the gratitude of many editors (starting with me). GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

PS- I'd suggest you propose a solution at the British Isles naming dispute page. Anything, to break the logjam. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm keeping off the main pages for a bit - I might give it a quick look though. Certain people I've simply talked to too much. I think they enjoy the endless dispute. My suggestions never go down well there.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

e/c By which you mean Welcome back. I've spent a ridiculous amount of time on it, usually to have my suggestions cynically pissed on. I've even written a lot on it (esp. on the 'weight' of the dispute - the examples given are ludicrously magnified with bold text, but are actually in surprisingly short supply), but haven't found a way to get it in yet. I'm currently reading the Davies book (and Kearney's British Isles too - though I don't get much quiet time to read, and have always been a fairly slow reader), so one day maybe. 'The Isles' is a polemic - I'm finding it very hyper and was highly over-rated by a few critics when it came out. He's an historian working backwards from a bias - and consequently slips up quite a lot.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Matt, it's amazing when you spend time away from it that you tend not to care so much. My doctor tells me my blood pressure is back to normal. I'm 44 but look 10 years older, but then, I need more exercise. If I keep my cool I'm sure I'll look ten years younger, I wish! Jack forbes (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

True. Unfortunately for me, the month I had off was all wind and rain, but I was pretty busy - though you can't help missing what you are used to. We are having some sun now, and I'm working on about 5 different articles (with at least 10 old ones on hold!). The only way through it all is to work - I can't see myself getting too wound up again as I've decided to methodically put in all the work it takes to get where it's got to go. I'll still 'be bold' when necessary - we are entitled to use our own judgement for that. But doing the labour and having goals makes you more patient: getting into heated debates with unbudging people is pointless, and I've wasted hours on that regarding BI. Now for me it's just solely suggestions and editing, with maybe just the odd rejoinder slipping through. Why don't you build a page from scratch? It was the first things I did on WP I think - there are loads of UK people/topics untouched. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Matt, I have a really broad knowledge of many subjects, I read two or three books a week. This does not make me a good writer, I wish it did. Jack forbes (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: I never learned my knowledge from any university, but from the age of 17 or 18 I really drank in any books I could get my hands on. Jack forbes (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to write much to start a few articles - they could be stubs even. It's quite satisfying, and pretty easy to do. Maybe something will come to mind and enthuse you. I went to Uni in my 30's and lasted maybe 4 or 5 weeks. But writing gets easier the more you do.

Btw, if I were you, I'd politely ask GoodDay not to bring British Isles onto your Talk page (and then back onto his etc). If others get there, arguments could start. It could be tempting fate - and others might not know the score. At a glance, and given what the admins said, it looks like you've had two conversations on it (harmless I'm sure - but I'm sure you see my point). It's best not to get involved at all - I'd honestly give the subject a real wide birth. It could be really frustrating for you if you want to make a comment/edit and you can't. Saving that, try just to watch and not comment at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

no worrys there Matt. I 'm keeping well clear of it. I'm actually glad to be away from it for a while, and I'm definately sticking to the six months away from it all. Jack forbes (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Principality and civility

Firstly, I'd invite you to be a lot more civil and to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, per wp policy. Secondly, where is Wales a principality of? Sources would help. Please reply here. Verbal chat 09:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Originally of itself - the Welsh princes. Why don't you read it? The Royal family (who hold the courtesy title) are the royal family of the UK - not "England", their lineage is 'British' too (Tudor then Stuart, which aided the English/Welsh then Scottish unification and the creation of Britain) - but they don't have the original Welsh line/connection. And they are British.

If you are so clueless about the UK and Wales, how come you've twice made this edit? You can't blame me for being uncivil- it was a crazy thing to do twice (and not clever once). You clearly haven't read the archives, the article, that background or anything. What you don't tell a Welshman (or Scotsman etc) is that he/she owned by the English. You wouldn't even say that to a English royalist re the monarchy - the monarchy are British, and the Countries of the United Kingdom represent an equal union. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right that I didn't read the archives. Is that so bad? I don't think it warrants being called a vandal. Is your contention that Wales is no longer a principality, or that it is only a historical principaity? I don't dispute most of your statements, although I think they are a little strong, and would ask you not to put words in my mouth or make straw men arguments extrapolating from my editing. I thought the "largest" addition was interesting and added to the article. I hope my other small copy edits are ok with you. Verbal chat 09:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As I just said in your Talk - I did get a very bad impression of you, esp as you changed my heading on you talk to "Wales is a principality of England"! That was a moments trolling at least - anyone would fear the worse when they saw that. You now have it as "is/isn't" - I'll tell you again that it isn't!

The other copy edit was not quite Kings English, so to speak. As it's a 'British English' article, I'm a bit snotty about the grammar. Other than that it was fine (but I reverted it as the meaning is no different and the old one was better). --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Removing all the recent UK work

Hello there, thanks for the contact. I appreciate that you've worked hard and feel a little aggrieved, but I was truely horrified by what I found, and the edit I made was perfectly acceptable with WP:BRD. The UK article is one of the most visited pages on Wikipedia, and thus the whole internet; we need the strictest of standards here. A new paragraph on indentity and nationality? - I really don't know where to start with that. Firstly, all WP articles are limited to a MAXIMUM of 4, secondly it's a forking of stuff that belongs at say British nationality law, thirdly there was a very limited discussion by about 3 users, fourthly there's no way that's stable, fifthy it tells me nothing about the UK... so on and so forth. The enboldening of the constituent countries is also a no-no per the manual of style. I appreciate you've worked hard between yourselves, but, frankly, I think you've each got a little carried away with that one. I noted it on the talk page, and there is support for my actions too. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You reverted my edit which took it back to 4 parags (I don't know why it was removed from that). All the work I did myself is lost. I think I'm in shock. I feel such an idiot for the time I give to this place sometimes - really genuinely ashamed.

There must have been 5 different contributors this afternoon. Support in talk is usually a nightmare: anyone can say "no", you know. The edit table is where things are done. To get 'support' for all achieved today will be just more work, and could be impossible. I don't get it. It feels like digging your own grave.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd urge you not to think of this in those terms - this isn't the end of the world, its just a request to go back to the drawing board. I'll say it again, I appreciate that you worked hard, and (as I said on UK talk) that your work was in good faith and has value. I just feel very, very strongly opposed to those edits in such a high-profile article, against so many conventions, with so little drive to involve other editors (eg. by way of a draft in a sandbox???). I'm not sure of your mantra on UK issues, but I know Snowded and Fishie have a very comparable cultural perspective and writing style; it can be good (very good even) at times, but (Snowded in particular) it is sometimes at odds with a great many other users, including (regrettably on this occation) myself. That I'm the first voice (of at least three now!) to have stepped in doesn't make me a sole- stubborn- editwarrior or such, I think I was just the first to be brave enough to ask for a rethink before our readers find that material!

I'm a very collaborative editor, I really am, as anyone at WP:GM would confirm for you; one doesn't get several FAs and GAs and become an admin if they aren't, as I'm sure you can appreciate. In this capacity, I hope you don't think this is an anti-collab move (as I have no doubt one of our co-editors will make out). I just feel strongly about this and I'm actually putting the reader first, and this small (but respectable) group of editors a close second; I can assure you there is no malise intended. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My thing is to be encyclopedic in the full balanced sense, and make intros cover the subject and be interesting to read. In my experiences Talk pages are too-often full people who keep things simple and resist change: Every now again these 'edit events' simply must happen. I didn't expect it to go like this (making the first edit) - but it happened. There was some nationalism poking through perhaps (mostly in what was removed, as it all must be weighted), but it was all getting dealt with. My philiosophy is that everything can be convered fairly. None of the editors involved were trolls (for a change - and how often does that happen?) so this really was a missed opportunity to solidify some valuable advances.

I hope people will be receptive in UK talk.

How do you feel about me putting some of my original stuff back in slowly? Starting with a simple edit? I'll leave out the multicultural section until later (and its fully reffed). I know the UK very well, what describes it and what is misleading. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? Going forwards, I'd have to say no, flattly, to any step (without consensus) which takes us back to that (IMHO) retrograde lead. Indeed, show me a lead on a sovereign state that has such a paragraph? How does Encarta, Britannica, Mind Alive etc tackle this? I have a masters degree in cultural management, and so the notion of multiculturalism isn't actually something that you may think it is; it's quite an inappropriate label to add by way of its emotivity; at what point does culture become multi-culture? Then there's the other aspect of supplanting a solid, stable lead that's endured, well, years of editorial skirmishes, with a version that is only a few hours old. You mention "balance" and "interest", but I don't think you're considering that this may appear so to you, but to me and the other objectors, it isn't. As I've said, this material has value, but not in this lead. Indeed, owing to the selection of sources, if I was to write that paragraph I'd be quite able to imply very different conclusions and still have references; a reason why this isn't a sustainable change to the lead. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The UK is almost unique in how it expressees identity. Multiculturalism happens here. Britishness happens - but none are inforced. It is a woking union and an island. I don't think it is fair to compare it with other countries. They tend to be poor on the UK too, especially the non-British ones.

I don't know what a degree in cultural management says "multiculturalism" is, but I know that Britain is famously multicultural (without the 'ism'), and I know why. Some people don;t like it for sure - but that is not for the lead, only facts are. Newspaper waffle on the death of multicultralism is not for the lead (citable or no) - only facts. Are you saying it destoys the balance, and isn't interesting (by which I include relevance as a given)? There are a million Poles in the UK - can we not say the UK is culturally diverse in the lead? Intros are my main interest on WP, and I know they are all some people read. I always think of how I'd explain the subject to a stranger I met on a train. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I had my troubles when I tried to make the intro of England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland consistant. As I've said (upon final realization), the UK is a country with a multiple identity. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair observation (to both of you). I think you're missing the point a little here. I actually agree the UK has "multiple identities", but guys, get post-modern here - every locality in the world (and I mean right down to a lift you might share in a block of flats, or a bus you ride on) is "multicultural". Bolton is multicultural, as is Glasgow, as is New York as is Ahmedabad as is Europe, Iraq, Navenby wherever you chose. Think of your own street where you live - its multicultural with multiple "indentities". Even your family is multicultural with multiple identities! I'm not saying the UK is monocultural - I'm saying its a totally useless, inappropriate and non-notable thing to add to the lead. A developed, Western, European, former imperial country comprised of a union, with sparse rural areas and major metropolitan areas in a post-modern era having "multiple identities" - wow, who would've thought it. I wonder if the pre-1707 Kingdom of England had multiple identities? Richard the Lionheart having the same identity as Ottiwell of the Swamp (i.e. a peasant)? Come on, think critically and objectively here; these "identities" written into the UK article is just a fork for nationalistic pride, that doesn't encompass anykind of historical or quantifiable notability. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Post modern? bah! Have you noticed how immigrants in the US become American? They fly the flag. The UK is more tolerant of different identities (even when it is being intolerant - it's had to be, and it's how the union has survived). It's part of its possibly unique 'flexible' structure. I used to go to the Notting Hill carnival every year. There is something different about he way UK deals with identity that needs describing. All these endless rows surrounding the UK are about identity! the UK's amazing culture is to do with it. If a section is made, it will find its way into the lead I guarantee it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing multiculturalism with nationalism - which is where this issue really lies. Flying a shared flag doesn't imply the absence of multiculturalism!! That's alluding to shared symbolism. Are you seriously saying the United States has only one culture and is intollerant to anything different?!? This is basic stuff, and I think we're going round in circles here. What about racial divide? East and West coasts? Alaska has the same culture as Texas? Democrat and Republican? Catholic and protestant? Hispanic and Asian? Native Americans flying the flag? What about state identity and state flag flying? Does Bill Gates have the same identity as Carl Weathers? Las Vegas and San Fransisco?... these are different cultures! I think I've made my point with those rhetorical questions.

"The UK is more tolerant of different identities" - where are you getting this stuff from? How are you citing this? When did the UK become sentient? This is stuff you're plucking from your own perpective; it does not represent any kind of scholarly research, which is why I gaurentee its a non-starter. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

don't be so rude "all this stuff". I live in the UK? Where do you live? Are you in the UK or are we just in complete disagreement here? We allow different values in the UK in the way the USA largely doesn;t tolerate - tolerance is 'supposed' to be the British way. For all our grumblings in Britain it actually IS. That combined with the cultural diversity, the immigration, the cites, the union of our countries, the arts - it all paints a muticutural picture that is uncommon in this world. You will find it in other countries and cities - but it is uncommon to this degree. I'm worried you have too much weight with this as an admin. Sorry to be mean like that - it's not a job I would do. Is see a Britain that you clearly don't. You will find examples of exceptions : But the intro is about the general picture. You are scociologising it out of sight.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(<-)I live in the United Kingdom thank you very much, in one of the most culturally diverse (and intollerant) boroughs in England. I'm a product of multiculturalism - I'm ethnically Anglo-Celtic. Does that make the slightest bit of difference? I think not. This isn't a battle, its about making WP as good as it can be; being bold and working hard, but nullying bias and ensuring high editorial standards. The intro isn't a "general picture", it is subject to consensus, limitations in scope and length, nullifying bias, ensuring stability, reflecting real-world scholarly practice in summary style.

I think it is time to wrap this up though. I've a feeling I'm not articulating my points clearly enough for you to pick up on for this to stay constructive. However, I have two challenges:

1) Name me one country or municipality on this planet that isn't multicultural.

A) I've answered that in UK talk - you could say that about anything. As an argument, it doesn't say anything. It's about Notability in the UK intro, as far as I'm concerned. An commonnames, and the 'reality' WP which I've forgotten. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

2) Give me an example of any other (major/reputable) encyclopedia that mentions multiculturalism in the lead about the UK.

A) As I've said, they go for the UK in simple descriptive terms (it's a collection of countries after all). A cop out, but we could have a scoop here - a quality UK article. Don't you think out first parag is embarrassingly similar to encarta in part (if encarta is the one, it's almost a lift)? --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

With that, I've a major headache, and I'm somewhat exhausted! Hope you're enjoying the retort and taking this all in as good spirit as I; please don't mistake my robustness/thoroughness for disrespect. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting your points, and I never mind arguing with someone with at least half a brain, but I'm very wary of waffle. Multicultural(ism) are just words - behind it is a UK I see every day. We can describe it. And using a number of words. I'm off to bed, anyway. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

River Shannon

I've decided at that article, to stick with Ireland, as the river is entirely within the island. I honestly can't (for the moment) see British Isles surviving on that page (even in the manner you've proposed). PS- I'm sorta thinking of backing away (again) from the BI discussions a bit, as a neutral tends to not help matters much. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't blame you for supporting Ireland here. To be honest, I thought Tharcuncoll was being provocative by inserting it when he did. But it's hard for me to support its removal now it's in, especially as it would set a precedence - and I think we should start to look at all the articles that cover BI now. Discussing it on an article per article basis (as Snowded seems to suggest) would make a lot of sense if people were not so partisan, but in the situation we have, it will unfortunately take far too much of people's time. We need wider solutions that people can at least bear in mind. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, throughout the BI discussions, I've found Northern Ireland has been the core of the problems. If River Shannon had been within Great Britain? I'd supported using British Isles (which naturally includes Ireland). That's the only way I can see it. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a tough one. I'd be happy myself if he never inserted it - or he used "and the United Kingdom" (he claimed the article was "selling the river short"). If it wasn't a geographical term I'd be there, but it's an important river (and rivers are used throughout history of course), and there's that nagging 'precedent' element. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

At one time, I used to be pro-British Isles on all those related articles, but I'm not as consistancy driven these days (the Scotland article bruised me, concerning consistancy pushing). GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to hit the sack (go to bed); as I've fallen off my chair (seconds ago). GD, signing out. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

e/c They'll be getting a referendum at some point. RE the UK - I've always kept to Welsh issues, and the wider UK only when I come across it. Living here I've always known how partisan people can be, and how different we are. What some people can't see is how similar we are too. And how well we've worked together (despite Thatcher's years - which cared only for South England and a 'trickle down' budget for everywhere else). I'm a true Brit, and a proud Welshman, but I worry that the whole 'British Isles' thing could get too right wing (too extreme on both sides in fact). I'm a socialist too, and the Union Jack in Britain has been flown by some very unsavory types in the past. Outside of royalty fans, most of the UK see the flag as purely ceremonial, and Britain as a flexible identity. I'm uncomfortable when people over push Britain, though I support it totally. British Isles is fine to me as a geographical term - but I don't want to see it abused, as much as I don't want to see it 'politically' removed.

I'm off to bed soon too. Bit more work I promised though..--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks (Jza84)

Please take things easy. You're attacking me (again) for passing a courteous comment with my opinion on an article of my choice ([2], [3]). There's no need, really. This will do nothing but polarise us, when infact I actually think you're a great editor, and think we could improve alot of content going forwards. That said, this is a warning that incivility and assumptions of bad faith are unacceptable and I am a little hurt by your comments.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. I've given you alot of dignity and respect, and would ask that you not see me in a bad light because we've had one content debate. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See my reply on DDstretch's talk. I admit I was angry on Wales (and probably rude) but on DDStrtch I thought I actually gave you some credit? I couldn;t help the 'a little pretentious' comment - I been through sociology myself (as an A level nighclass, and for a very short period with the OU), so its a kind of personal reaction to all of that - and a lot I've read in life besides. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm a little bit bruised and unwelcome to say the least. I've been labelled a "bully", "abuser of power", "pretentious", "vandal", "too involved admin", "creator of discontent", and a whole host of nasty things by you and User:Snowded in just the last 24 hours alone. Abuse of power? - I think I'd have more than enough evidence to hit the block button very hard, really (wouldn't you in my shoes?). But, having said that, I think you're better than that, and deserve better. You're an intelligent guy though (I can tell), you must know better? Surely?

I'm just confirming that, on my part, despite the things you've said, there's no ill feeling on my part. However, there is a point when even I have to say "enough is enough". I'd like to put this behind us, would you? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

e/c Certainly. I thought it was until I saw the Wales template and remembered the Rollback thing (we all have opinions on good/bad editors - he may write great prose(?) but he didn't seem like the best in those kind of situations to me). Intros just happen to be very important to me, as is Wales (and the UK in fact). As for being in your shoes - I simply couldn't, and wouldn't be an admin. And it is a choice, not a curse - though you have to be accepted, granted. I wouldn't even wish to have Rollback - and you have to accept that as well, presumably. Man of the people, me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted

How about this for a freaky coincidence? (read my last comment above!) I do appreciate you giving it me - but it would be a weight around my neck, I think. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Then don't use it :-). Or use it once, see how monumentally overrated it really is, and then let me know, and I'll remove it from your account. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 21:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ack, not sure what happened, but Goodday just eediting my template and not your talkpage. I'll return here shortly with his comment to you. Keeper ǀ 76 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on becoming a Rollbacker, Matt. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Back from the Template Zone.. (and a cup of tea) I think this may burn a hole it my pocket. I will have a look at it though (to be honest I don't know exactly what it is) - I already installed something once that says "Rollback" next to a diff every now and again (I've never touched it). I just assumed that with 'proper' rollback you can quickly undo lots of edits. But if you are looking through the edits to see if any are good anyway - then surely that would make it redundant as a time saver? I'll give it a look. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, I have a template that I plop on usertalk pages, I forgot to add subst: to it, so anytime anyone tried to comment here, they commented on my template instead. Oops. Anywho, this page may prove helpful. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 22:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest Wales intro edits

Hi Matt, re: the peacock term(s) in the Wales intro - I really do think that we should strive to be objective and adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:PCK, WP:V and all that. If "Gerald of Wales described the Welsh landscape as 'spectacular'" (with ref) or "Jan Morris called the Welsh landscape 'striking'" that would be fine with me, but if we just state our subjective opinion about the beauty of the Welsh landscape (which I agree is indeed spectacular) then I don't think we're being encyclopedic. Cheers.Pondle (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look for a quote. You could help, you know! I don't get why you don't want to celebrate something so obviously true, for the sake of an easily-changed word or easily found ref. The language was awkward when you just removed the keys words. This was why I removed all the devolved matters stuff pending work - the language was rendered awful. The Gov/Politcs section is indeed lacking too much of info we had in the lead if you want something to do! As a graphic designer I've created a 200 page fishing guide for the WTB, mapping all four corners of Wales. It has solid tourism all over (the adverts were easily brought in) and the landscape (I had to find around 200 pictures) was clearly striking and diverse throughout. It's not just national myth - I've seen it along each river in Wales. I also wrote some of the section intro prose: in my research I found quote after quote. I've seen it with my own eyes, read about it, seen it on TV etc. It's not a short bland 'briefing' here - it's an intro to a country. From the snow-peaked Snowdonia, along the celebrated coast, through mountainous plains, canals, gorgeous villages, panoramic valleys - it's a small country with 'striking' (or whatever) landscape. Show me another country like Wales - its size taken into account. It just needs a quote. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject, but I don't want to use Wikipedia to celebrate anything - I just want to help to build an objective encyclopedia. I agree that we need elegant prose, but we've got to be careful to avoid opinion or advertising, don't you agree? After all, we ain't getting any paychecks from Visit Wales. Pondle (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew I'd get that the moment I wrote it! Would you really edit here if you didn't enjoy it? People choose the subjects that turn them on: it's all an objective celebration of something or other (when editing positively and properly at least). If not we really should be paid: it would be donkey work indeed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I enjoy editing, of course - it's great to be able to contribute to a worthy project. But I hate POV - too many articles are spoiled by folks either blatantly or subtly bigging up their hometown, their country, their favourite band or sports team, or promoting their own particular assumptions, opinions, prejudices, and propaganda. Call me a Gradgrind, but I want to try - as far as possible - to stick to the facts. Pondle (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What if the facts are also emotive? Do you remove the character and emotion? "Varied" is just half the story with the landscape. "Many parts of the country" seems hardly notable regarding tourism at all! You have actually weakened two facts: surely you know that neither can stand as they are? Or are you planning to wait a little while and remove them citing Wikipolicy too? When I have a ref-finding session soon I'll get the refs - it just seems so churlish of you to remove them now, when you know they are both notable and true! Wales, if nothing else, is a country-wide tourist attraction. It flipping survived off it for years! As for Dickens, did you ever read this one? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on Matt - you may think that the landscape of Wales is "spectacular", I might even share your view, but as an experienced editor you know that Wikipedia isn't the place for our opinions. As I said before, if you want to include an 'elegant descriptive adjective' cited in a good source, that's cool with me. I'm not trying to WP:OWN the article. But I won't support any peacock terms simply used to promote a particular person, place, thing or viewpoint. BTW in a spirit of being constructive here's an academic reference for you [4] Pondle (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

e/c I had changed it to "striking" after your removal. I never found a ref for 'spectacular', but left it in (in April) for want of a better word. I honestly always thought someone would improve it (and indeed a few elements the work I did at one point, which had bits that were never cited from the outset) - but no-one ever did - even in the month I had off from this place in June. Mainly the editing has been in the first line, and yourself in the Assembly parag (and you are now into the wider intro). My initial change to the whole Intro was a primarily a stuctural change - and the structure has stuck. Whatever you say, it's clearly a far superior intro to the one I found. I'm no fan at all of the 'reductive' (and very often far too 'PC') attitute I've seen elsewhere - it's aiming low at best, and I'm not interested in it at all. This isn't just an encyclopedia I want to see, it's a quality one - which means so much more than just having the correct facts, important though that is (before you say).--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW I own a copy of the Welsh Academy Encyclopedia of Wales, and I've just realised that it has a good section on landscape, topography and its appreciation (positive and negative - good for balance). There's some excellent material in there, I'll try to do something with it - I probably won't have time tomorrow, but sometime over the next few days.Pondle (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the spirit. I wouldn't mind that myself - the internet has so much in it, it's easy to think things don't exist sometimes when it draws a blank. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I was rather offended about the '3rd view' thing, btw. You didn't confer with me at all - and you requested it mid-argument (after I thought it took a bit of an unfair turn with an admin as well), while still waiting for my re-wording too (so he hasn't seen it). It was a bit of a prod from the side I felt. The outcome was the kind of pointless passing comment I myself can do with out. Either people are in the debate or they are not. I consider it 100% meaningless, and would be obliged if you do not refer to it in terms of consensus. Someone from the Bronx thinks it's too long? So what. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Why were you offended? I asked for a third opinion because we seemed to be deadlocked and going round in cicles, and its difficult to reach consensus when there are only two people involved in the dispute. Third opinions and requests for comment are a legitimate part of the resolution process. I've been civil and constructive in my arguments with you, and I feel that we've made progress in the last 24 hours. Don't get so stressed about everything! Pondle (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't if obvious? I've explained it already. You ought to have brought me into the decision at very least. You didn’t even wait for me to find the words and links - ie give my version. I left your favoured edit up - there wasn't even a 1R. A 3rd opinion is surely the first 'last ditch' when two people are deadlocked. You did it before I even showed you my version! I was very bad faith I thought. You say I'm stressed - it's actually not the case. I was happy debating, though I'll always say how I feel. And I'm doing other things too. I felt a bit ganged up on, when I was working things out. I think you were on Jza's bandwagon from UK too - you may know how I feel about that editor, I think he crosses the editor/admin line unfairly sometimes. Maybe you did it in a moments stress yourself? Imagine it in the work place: Some stranger popping in to look at something involved and important to you, that you've invested time arguing on, and working on, backing you colleague, an then popping off. What would you say to your colleague for inviting him without consultation? "I could have done without that, mate." As it was not needed, the person who took up the task was always going to be a bit unwise (as we can see below). It was a flawed decision.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, the nature of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it - we are supposed to be welcoming and inclusive to "strangers" and we shouldn't get "possessive" about articles (admittedly, it's easier said than done sometimes). At the time I asked for a 3rd opinion, I believed that we were deadlocked. Asking for a neutral view from a credible, established editor seemed reasonable to me. You're entitled to your view, but I don't resile from doing it. Heck, they might even have agreed with you, in which case I think you'd probably feel rather differently about the whole thing.Pondle (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Question re BI naming dispute

Matt - something struck me. Has anyone enquired where all the editors in the British Isles naming dispute actually come from? Recalling other such discussions, it seems evident that there are outsiders who simply wish to cause trouble. I've noticed that people who actually live on the island of Ireland, while they can have really serious differences with each other, don't generally create division and rancour for the sake of it. I don't recall them doing this on petty-fogging grounds. Whereas some outsiders seem to do nothing else. I can't trawl all the discussion there's been on this topic (I don't even know how many dozens of articles are involved), so I'm coming to you to try and discover whether this angle's been considered. PR^talk 13:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the people who've been at it for a while have a fair idea of each others POV (it's one of those issues where it's hard ot be neutral). But with Wikipedia who knows? Some socks and IP's come in from time to time. In my opinion WP is a hotbed of pretty extreme views, but people in the end can always wok something out IMO (as is hopefully starting to happen here). I've argued all along that I've never seen the kind of 'dissent' WP affords the term in the wider world (or even in references past a handful which are heralded by some here like thy are the contents of the holy grail!) - but this is WIkipedia and has rules of its own. We have to satisfy those on it who want to have their say.

I'm personally 'in the middle' on the BI issue (I'm a Brit, who sees the term a a commonly used one, but wants to see the term used sensitively.) But there are many (broadly speaking) nationalists (supporting full independence of Scotland, Wales and NI) and Irish (some who are very much into removing the 'stigma' of the Britain from Ireland - and they largely seem to support UK's break up too). To a lesser degree perhaps, there are pro-British involved (though that logically is the broader view on WP). We have some unfortunate trolls from time to time who are very imperialistic about Britain (which embarrass me no end). And trolls who blame the British for all the evils under the sun (they ignore the good stuff alas). There are others around like me too - it's a mixed bag. It's probably not too helpful to group them, but is hard not to at times. The task force is good news as people are prepared to talk in one place (so to speak) at least - in view of wider 'guidelines' on the BI term. I'm a bit frustrated at the moment as the task force hasn't quite started - hopefully it will today (though I'll probably miss it as I'm going out!).

I suppose to answer you briefly - it's a typical WP story in a contentious matter, perhaps. No doubt many are scared off by all the stuff flying around. Wikipedia seems to be empty at times (despite all its members) - it's all down to the intensity of the few. I suppose i can be one. A few articles are central (and of course lots that use the term) - ultimately we will have to deal with a fork of the main BI page (the 'British Isles naming dispute', as you know). In the commonname terms, BI is used as a geographical term - but if someone sees it as political, then to them it simply is. Like you, I think Ireland itself has better things on its mind right now. The 'task force' (a sub of Wikiproject:Geography) came about when someone went around removing the term, then someone else started to put it in where it wasn't already: if that carried on it would have been mayhem! The River Shannon is currently locked because of it. Hope I've answered a few things.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you've answered lots of things. However, I wondered how many of the people contributing have nothing really to do with Ireland or the UK (living, perhaps, 3000 miles away), other than a determination to cause it/them trouble. This is a feature I've noticed before, a kind of racist gang-making activity, people drawn to discussions on Ireland by the "glamour" of violence and bombings and the satisfaction of causing upset to sometimes grieving people. Similar activity may swirl around Cuba and places in the Middle East. PR^talk 14:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a (probably semi-humorous) term called 'plastic paddy' (insert your nationality!): it's someone who cares more about these type of things, simply because he/she lives abroad. The IRA certainly benefitted from some 'glamour status' in the US. That is an idealised thing though. In terms of disruption I think it's more to do with what Wikipedia is open too: the whole 'miasma' is in here - and it can all be done from a couch! Also some people are very young too - there's no doubt wisdom, experience and perspective plays a part too. In the middle east and Cuba people have those financial and cultural reasons for bias (and hence all the many forms of disruption - as I'm sure you know), but with Ireland I think it's more a glamour thing for any 3,000 milers involved (who aren't all that Irish) and an genuinely imperialistic one for the British equivalents. In terms of disruption that is. Since the Northern Ireland Assembly, the NI factor is less of an issue - it clearly needs to succeed at it's own pace now (wherever it goes), and disrupting that won't be welcome by anybody IMO.

Sorry if I'm missing a point, or question. I'm going out soon. Probably be back on once. Can you do me a favour? If you know an intelligent and neutral admin (esp neutral in this issue) - can you get him to look at the request for opening the task force on the Wikiproject Geography Talk page? No one in Geography (perhaps unsurprisingly) seems to want to do it. I'll be out a lot of the weekend alas, but it clearly needs to get going.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain to me and others the real nature and scope of what you need doing? It would help us find a facilitator, and it might save us from mission-creep later.

Actually, someone encouraged me to come over and help you guys out before, thinking I'd either be neutral, or capable of teasing out the most important elements of a nationalist debate. I blotted my copy-book by immediately declaring the underlying "dispute" to be silly. Not that having such a POV would actually stop me doing a good job, of course! PR^talk 16:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just to open it really - one of us could do it, but I put it in the poll that it needs to opened by a neutral at WIKIPROJECT:GEOGRAPHY (the request is on the talk page here). I didn't want to put a more general request to the wider 'community' (I know there is a place you can do this) as you never know who's going to apply! Unfortunately there has not been a taker at GEOG. I'll look through my edit history for an uninvolved American admin, that could do the trick - it's been a couple of days now and I'm tempted to just open it myself (but I won't). I'll make sure it's done today.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking a chance

I know I'm taking a chance here, but I would like to say you are being the most level headed person on the debate concerning the British Isles Template. I think I know your opinion on the term BI, and it takes someone big to discuss this in the way you are doing. GULP , There you go, I've said it!Jack forbes (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Bigger Gulp - will the aliens who abducted the old Matt give me a sign? Seriously, I agree. --HighKing (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't remember changing over anything. Apart from maybe polling on the 'noticeboard' idea - CarterBar wanted to put it to everyone, but I would have originally cut to the chase. Once debate has started though, it has to be done properly.

Btw Jack, I notice you've succumbed to temptation a little - although in a very low-key way. Nobody wants to see you jeopardise your chances of coming back. There is always a chance of a review before 6 months, but that's far less likely to happen if you re-involve. It only takes someone to refer to your comment and you'd be part of the debate.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, I dipped my toe in, then ran away. It's cold turkey from here on in. Jack forbes (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Another editor complaining about Matt Lewis' incivility

Your behavior violates WP rules of civility, no personal attacks, and assumption of good faith. Act in a more civil manner, immediately. Also, I was educated at the London School of Economics, and I do know a thing or two about Wales. However, I was delighted to find yet another uninformed, pathetic personal attack on your personal talk page. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Where have I been personal to you? You are just trying to get me into trouble. Hopefully people can see that - but you never know do you?--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would I care about getting you into trouble? You called me stupid in multiple ways, in multiple places, for no good reason, and generally acted boorish and cruel. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

accusing an established editor of replacing your talk page with obscenities

Why did you accuse TharkunColl of vandalising your talk page? I doubt he is User:Noobhunteristhedude, I doubt TharkunColl, a mature English gentleman, ever used the word 'noob' in his life. Your comment was beyond rude. Sticky Parkin 14:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"I doubt TharkunColl, a mature English gentleman, ever used the word 'noob' in his life." That's a keeper that is. The "gay foggot" vandalism happened during the '2RR' between him and myself on that template he made - it was just a question, not an accusation. I find tautology highly offensive. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:) Why's that a keeper? I was trying to say an English person of a certain vintage. Out of interest, you could ask him if he's ever used the word 'noob' :) Yes 'gay faggot'- maybe it's not a tautology but meant an intensifier, and means an even gayer faggot than the average faggot? :) Just wondering- not saying it's true or anything as far as I know.:) Sticky Parkin 18:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have no idea what "noob" even means, still less have I ever used it. Nor, to my knowledge, have I ever used the word "dude" - unless perchance I was quoting someone or perhaps being ironic. Similarly with "faggot" - unless, of course, if referring to the meaty food item invariably served with gravy. ðarkuncoll 21:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Taskforce on British Isles usage

Hello Matt, I think you should open the Taskforce. The members at the Geography WikiProject seem either reluctant or uninterested (seeing as it's been 4-days, now). GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I put it to a couple of people - an uninvolved American admin and someone from GEOG who happened to be online yesterday (though I think just went offline after I messaged her - hopefully not in horror). If nothing happens by 10.00pm (about an hour) I'll start it. Or thinking about it, why don't you? The start link is there and could you go by text I wrote. It couldn't be easier really.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you're offline. If you don't do it before, I'll do it at ten. It's getting a bit silly now like you say! --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I weren't off-line, just was in another section of Wikipedia & intially wasn't sure how to get it going. Thanks for starting it up Matt. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's to bad we couldn't make a trade-off, eh? Which shall we hide British Isles or Republic of Ireland. I assume Wikipedia would frown on such a compromise though. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever we come up with, it won't be 100% pure MOS that's for sure. But if we foge a final Guideline out of it, maybe it would qualify as an exceptional issue. I personally like "..in the Republic of Ireland and the surrounding British Isles." for the Irish-heavy geographical articles (for me, non-geographic = non-use for Irish-heavy articles). If it means disrupting any 'consensus' on the piping of ROI, I'm more than happy to do it. Ireland can simply mean Northern Ireland too, so it's just daft using the pipe anyway. Is sounds to me that the wrong side won a lengthy war here: but they are tight and powerful bunch, the "Ireland, Ireland" lot. It could be the root of the problem. (as you have suggested, in fairness).--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think my BI/RoI suggestion, is heading towards the scrapyard. Sarah & Tharky seem to have given it the 'bronx cheer'. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I must be honest, you're way ahead of me at the Taskforce (which is a good thing). I'm quite content with the effort you're putting into it & amazed with your ability to think up all these quidelines. I'm afraid somebody else will be required to give you a more accurate analysis though, as I'm a bit overwhelmed. Again, whatever's decided (at the taskforce)? I'll go along with it. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, those edit wars are stirring up again. I think blocks will soon have to be handed out. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

PS, don't let anybody bully you away from the Taskforce. Sometimes, people don't wish to see somebody try & fix things; so hang in there. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think as we near 2009; administrators will be more heavy handed on these British Isles usage edit wars. Less page protections, more editors being blocked. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope so - I've always felt that through full protection, the ultimate punishment is on the articles themselves, and the people who want to edit them, rather the people who edit war to the point where they are locked. I do think admins can be too quick to lock as well. They need more dispute resolution options other than 'block and lock'. And whatever people think of the "never a good place" factor, articles can be frozen in some poor situations. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think you're single-handedly keeping this Task Force together. Kudos where it's due, and you've more support than you might think - especially from me. --HighKing (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed your suggestions have all been decent - if we keep it up we can surely get something through. I'm certain that giving people choice is the key. There will always be certain articles that people will argue over - but we have the various talk pages for that. We just need guidelines that can show people that there are certain places where the term is being used where it isn't really suitable, and there are also places where it is being disallowed on principle, when we should allow for a method of including it should anyone wish to do so. At the bottom of it all is the censorship issue: these can only, at best, be strong guidelines for all the forms of usage that are likely to arise - but that should be good enough. Trying to create 'tunnels' or 'moulds' is just wrong. Matters like the pipe-link in Ireland can be too transient - proper stable guidelines should be able to encompass things like that, not be fashioned by them.--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Ramensky

Hello Matt, I know you are busy with other things, but I would appreciate it if you could give me some construcive criticism on the article I am working on at my Sandbox. Over the last couple of days I have been adding references and correcting factual errors, along with trying to bulk the article out. I have now decided to work on it at my sandbox. As I said, I know you are busy with other things, but a quick look would be much appreciated. Jack forbes (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might get into it - it looks good. The prose is fine too. I would say you just need bring the two fist parags into one (just move the second one up) and put your main source at the end of each large parag. The source can be a book, or books - it doesn't have to be a website (there's a few different methods you can use at (WP:CITE#HOW). Wikipedia is full of unconforming refs as I'm sure you know. There's no definitive guide on headings etc for biogs, so I think the layout is fine per MOSBIO. The only thing I noticed prose-wise was that you could reverse the first line under Military (ie "The British Army contacted Ramensky in prison when they...") There's a speller in the lead which I'm sure you'll notice. It won’t get an AfD that's for sure! Do you have more to put in it? (not that it needs it to survive). I'm a member of WP:BiOGS so can give it 'start class' if you put it up as its stands. With it bit more it would be C etc, (see the box half way down WP:BIOGRAPHY page for examples).--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Matt. I should have pointed out I did not create this article, but tried to improve it. I have taken your suggestions on board and have changed a couple of things around. To be honest, I have no idea whether it was a stub or start class before I took an interest in it. I will try to add more information to it in the future, but right now I'm still trying to figure out how to move it from my sandbox to the article space:). If it was a stub class I would take your suggestion and put it up for start class. Thanks again! Jack forbes (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I've figured it out! Jack forbes (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

e/c You just need to copy and paste. (jsut take out the sandbox code at the top)--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see it has never been put up for anything, and with the work I've put into it (rewriting most of it and adding information and refs) I would be grateful if you could give it a start class. If Johnny Ramensky already has a start class, ignore everything I have just said and I'll go back to the drawing board. :). Who knows, I may start an article from scratch in the future, but you know the saying, crawl before you can walk, walk before you can run. Jack forbes (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I does have a start class tag. I had a proper look at other C's, and they are all seem closer to B than to Start (or halfway even) - they are longer and often have a picture. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No bother Matt. Thanks for your input. Jack forbes (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarify please

What does this mean? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it really need explaining? --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know if you're "taking the piss" with a little humour, or having a(nother) go. Eitherway, I think it was, and is, an unnecessary comment. Given the snap timing you editted I doubt you've encompassed the full dynamics and importance of what I was saying to Mr Forbes. I also made it explicit that I wanted to pick this up (quote) "after the WikiBreak". --Jza84 |  Talk  19:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify myself too, it's possible I've stumbled onto a trail of sockpuppetry that has adversly effected areas that not just myself, Jack or even DDStretch have been involved with, but also you, GoodDay and Snowded. It possibly the route of the breakdown of the great social cohesion that was gathering pace before the summer and that subsequently broke down. I was totally serious when I said to Jack I want to look again at the conditions (I set) for his usership. Afterall this means Jack has restrictions on his account owing to being attacked by one of WPs most prolific offenders.

In this capacity, I want to keep the tone serious and not be undermined. Could you revert your comment? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

e/c I did see if after I just got on the PC, but he's already found it hard to keep out the debate, and as he's on holiday in the real world I thought he might like the break from it all. I don't remember him being that provoked by anyone either, but I did read it all through in a hour or two perhaps when I found out about it - I could have missed something. It was always Jack's own sock that was the issue with me (which happened a lot before), not him losing his temper with whoever it was. And maybe also that for a day or two he did his best to (successfully) get me in trouble - which I forgive because I am a bit of rock when I have a point, and he's clearly an emotional guy. I noticed he was on a kind of 'extended retirement' and got away with quite a lot for a little while himself.

It's basically the cause, Jza - people need to know when to pull back. I always expected him being reviewed, but who knows what you mean by "look at it again"? You may as well do it now. I found it a bit patronising, if anything. It also holds him to a break he's probably going to break. So give him a break!--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll revert the comment if you want. I'll also look at the sock trail, but I don't get the relevancy to be honest. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course you wouldn't get the relevancy - and I understand that - but I do. I worked very well with Jack before "the incident", and felt a little disappointed with myself that I hadn't followed the case and supported him. That's because, at the time I was involved in an arbitration case with Fone4My's sock account - Yorkshirian. I was on the recieving end of alot of his abuse. It was horrific and vile, and is the route cause as to why I am much less liberal on Wikipedia than I used to be and why, perhaps even, you think I'm too uptight on WP (!).

I didn't see the detail of Jack's case. All I knew (and all I know) is that he had broken WP:SOCK. When I say "I want to revisit his conditions" I mean that Jack has enthusiam for areas of WP that I have denied him access too, based on the evidence that myself and others were given and discussed. Given the true extent and even expertise abuse that Fone4My/Daddy Kindsoul/Yorkshirian demonstrated, I think Jack's frustrations and retaliations may be a little more justified. It's basically a case of new evidence coming to light, and I thought it appropriate to let him know that perhaps he could be emancipated from his restrictions.

That said, I feel like I can't "do right for doing wrong", and so if you're not happy with my approach, I'm happy to stay with the status quo. I just thought I was helping out a fellow editor, but if you question my style, think I'm patronising and you don't see the relevance, sure, I can just leave things as they are for Jack and forget about the whole thing. What do you think? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you should either remove his block, give him a new date, or revert the comment. I just didn't get the ambiguity. I don't think you know the background with him and me. I lost my temper with him once partly because of something that happened at Wales which had nothing directly to do with the trolls around at the time: he talked me into supporting (and doing for him) a change to the "first/prime minister/etc" order in the Info box that I'm still a little annoyed about now. He then wanted futher changes, straight after a spate of trolling, and I realised that all of his edits/comments were pointing towards felicitating a breakup of Britain, something that you know I don't want to see. Having resented the earlier 'sweet-talk' I got a bit direct with him about it. I was actually out for a whole month (I retired myself - and meant it) because an admin eventually took his retirement threats seriously, and blocked me for 48 hours, during a serious proposal poll I opened at (guess what?) British Isles. It was my bloody proposal, to start with, and I was blocked. I don't get it with admins as you know, so I packed it in. I think he used his sock just the once, before I spoke to him - but it vindicated me big time, as it was over the Welsh info box.

We are talking about different periods in his editing life I think - but they are connect in my view - maybe not your own. When looking at the drama on my return, I noticed wryly that someone called him "one of the greatest editors" in his support in a 'petition' for him! He's exploring how to edit now, but at the time I don't think he'd written a single line of prose! It's all politics, politics, politics with all of us at UK - we have to remember that and try and keep everything simple, and clear by the rules. Everything seems a little muddy when Jack is involved - he's not a kid, but a mature adult. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, yes, there seems to be some confusion, and we have our wires crossed (again!). I wasn't aware that there had been some friction between you and Jack in this respect (or if I was it has long since slipped my mind). Indeed, I'll take a look at this. I haven't made any committment to changing his conditions, merely that this new evidence surrounding why he socked should be put into the context of his actions and discussed with him. I wanted to know how he felt he was getting on and how things might look going forwards.

I hadn't realised you'd been blocked before, and I do have a lot of personal sympathy with users who feel the need to combat the encroachment or any sense of systematic nationalist bias in UK topics.

Like I say, I'll double check this, and might even withdraw the mentions of "revisiting" his conditions. I was talking about the frustrations Jack had with Fone4My rather than anything else. I hope that's agreeable? Let me know your thoughts and I'll take them on board no problem. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's best now just to give him a new date? It's your job and I'm certainly no admin!. I've forgiven the spat I had with Jack (and him me). It's the ambiguity I didn't like over your message to him - as it just reminded me of all the prior muddiness. Maybe you should just either unblock him or give him a proper date (based on your adminness), and it's all really simple then. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not quite as simple as that. Jack isn't blocked as such, but banned (there is a difference) from certain topics in which he may find himself frustrated again (UK, Scotland, England etc). As I see it (to be proper about this) to lift that ban, I'd have to have the backing of a couple other admins, and possibly, even the backing of yourself as an involved party. Jack might not even want un-banning, and the fact he's going away for 2 months also puts a strain on the provisional 6 months I stated at the time. All a bit of a mess really. I wish I hadn't suggested anything. I'll review the material relating to his edits and see what's what tonight or tomorrow hopefully. If he's going away I suppose there's no rush.

Just popped in. Listen guys, I would rather the two of you had waited till I came back before this discussion took place. I would also rather the previous unpleasantness had been left in the past, seeing as the spat had been forgiven on both sides. I hope this does not mean it is brought up on any future editing I do on British Isles related pages (whenever that will be). And Matt, as for me being an emotional guy? Hmmm, would that make two of us? I shall spend the time with my family in Australia not giving a thought to this. Jack forbes (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

With all the supporters you've had I doubt it would follow you around! I've only gone into all this because I suspected Jza didn't quite understand your situation from the begining - as it turned out he thought your sock was related to the 'phone4me' person, but it wasn't. The only editor I can think of who'd ever have a reason to bring it up is actually me! But in reality I'd actually be the last person to want to once the ban is lifted. I honestly thought you could have done without the ambiguity when you were going away, knowning how tempting this place can get. (and I must admit I found it a bit anoying - I like things to be 'clear cut', but things on WP rarely are it seems - there as many hymn sheets as admin). --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, thanks for all that, I think. I did notice you saying I used the sock on one of the UK articles (Scotland as I recall) before you brought it up. This seems to imply I only stopped when you mentioned it which is far from the case. I used it once on the article to make a small suggestion to the infobox and then dropped it on my own initiative. In fact, the suggestion was to delete something I had placed there in the first place. This is not to say I should have did it, but I need to clear that up as your sentence above made it appear otherwise. It is your comments above that make me worry things will not be forgotten or will be mentioned in the future. PS; I was quite happy with the message JZa84 left me on my talk page and would have left it till I came back, it was your comments Matt that made me feel I had to spend time I don't really have in responding to them. Jack forbes (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I said you only specifically 'socked' with it the once, didn't I? The edit was on the Info box in Scotland, then you went to the one in Wales (to build a cross-nation consensus clearly - but that's where our 'spat' began so let's not go there). The reality is you were actually running two editing accounts, whether their edits crossed or not - you normally need a pretty valid reason to do that, and they should both stem from the same account. And don't forget that I have never gone around various admin trying to get you into trouble! And I am also joint-apologising for essentially speaking the truth - apart from swearing I don't remember doing a hell of a lot wrong! You were never really going to properly retire, that's for sure. I thought at one point jza would just end the suspense, but apparently he can't. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If only you were a little more honest with me I would never have come to you for advice. The little message you dropped JZ on my talk page was just an excuse for you to tell him what you actually thought of me. Bringing up our argument, which has no bearing on anything was a bit low, and also bringing my politics into it was quite absurd. I had forgotten the argument between us, you obviously hadn't, if you had why bring it up? Am I muddying the waters here? I will be leaving a message on JZ's page asking him not to lift the ban, I would rather not be involved in discussions with such a two faced editor. One more thing, please don't disparage me on your talk page again. If you can't help yourself, do the decent thing and let me know, I always like a chance to defend myself. Other than that I will not visit your talk page again. Jack forbes (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You are defending yourself, what's the problem? - you can't stop people talking I'm afraid. It never occurred to me for a second you wouldn't be back in an hour or so - you have never stood by a departure yet. Nor will you manage a two month break IMO. I don't know what you could have got up to with your other account, had socking not been such a public issue in between. I didn't find you 'naive' and 'inexperienced user' appeals during that period all that 'honest' when you had that other account. I think I've been perfectly reasonable with you. It's up to me what I say - I am not two-faced - I have always been open and honest myself. And it's no coincidence that those who also support the break up of Britain "miss you" so much! You'll always have a list of ready support at hand, Jack - you don't need to grumble about me.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, as long as you can sleep at night, because you have caused me a couple of sleepless nights. I'm sure that makes your day! Jack forbes (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Change your tack jack it's the same every time. If that was even half true (which I'm sure it isn't), you'd be better off in oz anyway. Enjoy the sun - I'm probably not going to have a holiday this year, and no-doubt will remain sweating it in here, so think yourself lucky you are getting away! --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry, I will enjoy the sun. I won't think about how some people can turn against me. Have you ever heard the term "stab in the back"? You should do, because that's what you have done. Don't give your rubbish about just being honest, you know you have been just been nasty. Your politics don't jibe with mine, that is your problem. As you said before, I'm no kid, in fact I'm a fair bit older than you are, so I've lived through more political governments than you have, so maybe a kid like you should listen for a change. Et tu, Brute? Jack forbes (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

On another note, as I'm here, what do you make of this? I'm finding more and more UK topics broken down into disamibuation pages with lists in lead sections. It's exactly the type of thing I was refering to earlier. This is another example where I've tried to reduce this "listy" encroachment. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one. Could Fishiehelper2 and 86.157... be one and the same? Awful lot of overlap. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was as complicated as that. Best leave it as it stands - at least my comments out now. Hopefully no one will notice. I'll look at the diff's but haven't really thought much about fishiehelper either way (other than a seeming enthusiasm - I've not seen him war or anything, he just seems to pop up every now and again). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

break

(←) Fishie's great, but has a tendancy to see the the UK as merely a disabiguation page for the home nations. Education in the United Kingdom is a classic Fishiehelper2 article - yes he's worked hard on it, but it basically forks that UK has nothing in common with itself. Religion in the United Kingdom is another. Both Fishie and 86.157 keep turning lead sections of UK topics into disambigation lists. I don't think it's helpful, afterall Religion in Europe and Religion in Scotland don't do it, so why should the UK? I don't have the strength to tackle another sock. Maybe I should wikibreak too. :( --Jza84 |  Talk  21:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I copied these as I went though them (all the the same editor I think), but other than your conversation with him just recently, it seems like he's just signing on and off for some reason (shared PC?). I can't see any 'edit warring' (apart from once with you - on just one IP), and there are always some kind of gap between edits. He'd have to be 'layering', so to speak - not sure he is though. The only weird thing was saying 'thanks' when you welcomed him today. Other than that I can't see much wrong. RE the list thing - I must admit I find the ways the subs can be hidden very frustrating. Have a look in Autism (an FA) and try and spot them - they are often single word pipes in the text! I know list are per LEAD, but there is no ideal way to deal with subs on WP. Even 'see also's' are frowned upon in the LEAD. There needs to be a better 'related article system.

Special:Contributions/86.156.3.70

Special:Contributions/86.156.96.217

Special:Contributions/86.157.202.178

Special:Contributions/86.157.200.1

Special:Contributions/86.157.164.135

Special:Contributions/86.145.189.251

Special:Contributions/86.157.202.40

Special:Contributions/86.152.75.144

Special:Contributions/86.156.227.229

Special:Contributions/86.150.25.82

Special:Contributions/86.157.116.183

Special:Contributions/86.155.105.250

Special:Contributions/86.151.159.196

Special:Contributions/86.150.195.20

Special:Contributions/86.157.240.10

Special:Contributions/86.155.84.107

--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Pipelinks

IMHO, the pipelink [Republic of Ireland|Ireland] was a mistake. It now forces us to use the pipelink [Ireland|Ireland (island)]. Trust me, getting Republic of Ireland moved to Ireland (that discussion is currently under a 6-month moratoriam); Ireland moved Ireland (island), to avoid those pipelinks? Would be a major headache. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've actually never been one to stray into other territory when it doesn't cross my own - so they can do what they like there, although I don't like it either, and will certainly add my 'support' to any reversal of the 'rule' on it after the daft moratorium is lifted. If there needs to be a moratorium, it simply cannot be right to have one! I've always argued that Britain needs flexibility, and this pipe intentionally stifles British identity re NI. I will, however, suggest using the Republic of Ireland (without pipe) for the sake of the new BI guidelines. Past rulings like that mean nothing to me when new articles are concerned. I don't give two hoots if things will then not be 'uniform' (if that was one of their arguments). Life isn't uniform - and flexibility with the UK is the key.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This all comes back to my (days earlier) suggestion, concerning British Isles usage. We either have [British Isles], [Republic of Ireland|Ireland] used Or [British Isles|Great Britain and Ireland], [Republic of Ireland]. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I still favour "[Republic of Ireland] and the wider [British Isles]" (as a choice from amongst many). If you provide people with choice they don't grumble so much.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Indents

Curious, why'd ya re-indent my last posting? I generally try to keep my postings at the same indents. That way, our postings won't get too far over to the right. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

On BIT you mean? I occasionally re-align any indents I see to try and fit with the way the flow is going. The problem with indents is that they can be fine at one point, but become less suitable as new people add comments - I don't think there is a perfect rule for them. If I've messed with your meaning feel free to put it back! The page is getting quite long now and I'm always trying to keep it easy to follow. At some point we might have to archive part of it, which I don't really want to see, but we might not have a choice.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Matt, you've done an incredible amount of work over the past two weeks. Most of it is very good. We're all working together on this new task force to reach an agreement. We are not going to agree on everything, and nobody is going to get it all according to their own views. There will be compromises by everyone. I'd prefer if you reverted your latest comment against my post on the mediation cabal page - it's not in keeping with the great work you've done on this to date, and I really don't want this process to stalemate. You are very very close to this process. It might be time to step back for a little while - or maybe for everyone to step back and have a think. --HighKing (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry (I started using you old name then!) - you jumped in supporting Snowded on the MEDCAB page (which I made between him and me) so you will have to roll with what I said I'm afraid. What I said I stand by - you must accept that and not patronisingly tell me to stand back - I'm standing my ground, not losing my mind! Virtually everything I've done I can be flexible on - but the guideline HAS to framed in the best way. And that means using ROI. Weaken the frame and it will all collapse. Your geography-only route will not go anywhere with Tharkuncoll et al - so how are we going to get a guideline out of it? I wouldn't accept it myself. We cannot censor on WP - it is not in the ethos of WP, so will never stick. We have to be clever instead. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't clear that the MEDCAB page was to be reserved for you and Snowded - the link was placed on the taskforce page, and normally these processes are open to all editors. I wasn't "siding" with anybody, but indicating my position. I wasn't patronising you, but trying to inject a pause, for your benefit. Take it as it was meant. I respect your opinions - I mightn't agree with them all, and I try to debate those I don't agree with, while also proposing alternatives. Tharky is entitled to join into this discussion whenever he wants to, if he doesn't agree with something, he's very capable of saying so himself. I'd prefer to at least debate why you feel RoI *needs* to be part of the guidelines. I don't *understand* your reasons (they're not clear to me), so I can't form an opinion on agreeing or disagreeing based on *your* reasons. I've tried to explain *my* reasons, that's all, and I've tried to formulate some simple guidelines to ringfence what we can all agree with, and push the disagreements into clear view. I'm not into censoring WP either, and my suggested guidelines clearly show this. Starting out with an "I wouldn't accept it myself" statement leaves me with nothing more to say, does it? Just who do you want to participate in this? Perhaps you'd be happier if only you and Snowded worked it all out? If you want me to piss off, just say the word. --HighKing (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The only way to start the MEDCAB was to put the tempate at the top of the main page and follow the link that it created after saving. It then asked me who my dispute was with - leaving room for one name. It suited me, as my only issue was that I couldn't carry on in the same vein with Snowded, essentially having to read and say the same thing. I couldn't grasp where he is coming from now, but I can't focus on him properly at all at the moment. Maybe tomorrow. The best thing for me right now is to concentrate building up the examples. We need to offer as much choice as we can, from all the favoured angles, with all the provisos/limits/restrictions/barriers etc that come up. The comments sections under each one have been fairly succesful, imo anyway. We can always decide what to use towards the end. You do what you want. Maybe think about the ROI issue?--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Matt, please check my recent posting at the Taskforce. The RoI thingy dispute, is kinda confusing for me, but I think I'm understanding what you're saying. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm losing track of it myself now I've stopped looking at it edit by edit. I'm worried it could spiral out of control - personal sections, cross debates etc. It's got very long too. I'll see what you've written anyway. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Snowdon & Carrauntoohil

It looks alright to me; but personally I'd have Great Britain (instead of Britain). GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read the extra bit on Carrauntoohil yet! --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd add Carrauntoohil's ranking in the British Isles, aswell. But, that's just me. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to revert my tweak at Snowdon? feel free. I made that edit, as an example of what I felt would be more accurate (in otherwords IMO). GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

c/e - No, good idea adding "Great Britain". It did say British, I changed it to Britain as a prose edit. GB is better than both of them. Have you noticed that it has to begin with Wales? You'd never get a Welshman to lose that! So it can't always just be geographical. It's only the ambiguity of the word 'Ireland' that allows people to insist on "the geographical" there. If the island of Ireland was called Mungadunga it would be a different kettle of fish!--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you mentioned Ireland. The article Republic of Ireland has either got to be changed (when the moratoriam ends) to Ireland (state) or the Pipe-link has gotta go. Also, I truly believe Wikipedia has got to make a deal with the opposing sides of British Isles usage -- Allow usage of British Isles? and we'll allow the article Republic of Ireland to become Ireland (state). GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

At least you've had the honesty to call it what it is - a deal. It's what I've been fighting against, though - I've sure you've seen the MEDCAB case. I'm convinced we can do this using the English language. I'm hoping to help put together a guideline that is very hard for either side to reasonably turn away. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep it's a Wiki-deal - something for both sides to consider, if they can't come to an agreement. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It would still need to be framed by Ireland (state) mind. Forcing geography from the start (ie Ireland) doesn't work. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, I've made them all an offer they can't refuse. But, if it doesn't take? Oh well - that's what the taskforce is for. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Scotland review

Scotland national football team has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Please alarm anyone else involved. Domiy (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

IP 86.xxx.xxx

Hiya Matt. I'd suggest you ignore that IP's postings, as he/she's just a troll (looking to stir up trouble). It's quite likely a sock-puppet of the banned user Gold heart. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In the past I've tried to fight all this, but losing momentum is a killer. That "Souza proposal" pantomime was a disaster - look how Snowded is using it now! What a disgrace he is. It could bloody murder Waggers for so stupidly blocking me for nothing at all (mainly Jack Forbes request) in the middle of my own proposal - in a metaphorical way, of course. The hyper-nationalists Snowded and Jack Forbes suddenly got involved and pushed my proposal off course, and I needed to be there to keep it on track. The supposed "11 editor" victory simply was for the status quo, as it simply went wildly off track, and people clearly got pissed off. What did you do? You openly voted for whatever others were supporting.

I know I shouldn't get roused by the nationalist thing - but it's more than just pro-independence - it's constantly borderline anti-British bigotry. I'm determined to see Policy win over this time, and not the extremists for a change. It makes a mockery of Wikipedia, and all the time I spend on it. Snowded has the 'upper hand' on calmness (a professional trait no doubt), but I think he's behaving like a total disgrace on the geography/political issue (whichever suits him) - and I'm notching his nudges too: so he won't get me on 'NPA', like he's trying so hard to do. I find it totally disgraceful, I really do. I never lose hold of logic - and I'll finally get this matter I've been concerned with for so long fairly resolved.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you & Snowy, can patch things up. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that Jack Forbes later admitted to trying to get me blocked? Where was Snowded then? I didn't get a peep from him in here. He was too busy burying my Proposal and entirely replacing it with his one-word change. Anyone fair and honest would have kept hold of the original proposal and all the suggestions in between. But he is a totally partisan single-purpose editor. Or rather it's either his "cognitive philosophy" dispute-resolution job (really), or the break-up of Britain. He is now gloating about a supposed 'weight of the previous victory', and has kindly shown people the diff! How can I not fight it? What choice do I have?

So what is there to patch up - he is no way a friend is he. He wants only one thing GoodDay, and if you ever saw or lived in Wales, you'd realise how totally far from reality in every possible way it is in people's hearts, and reality too. We only-just passed a much-needed Assembly in Wales because people are so wary of splitting from the UK! Everyone thought the referendum would fail (before and during) - fortunately it just peeped through at the end. Nobody in Wales wants the scary madness of a full independence from the UK - even if Scotland broke off first. It's all a constant attack on NI, Wales, Scotland - the whole UK basically. For Scoland I can at least understand it, even if I disagree - but for Wales? It's just bonkers.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten a few bruises on me, from the Scotland article (concerning squabbles over the Infobox Map, the inclusion of constituent county & removal of nation). They branded me a UK Nationalist & I suggested they suffered from 'group ownership'. I haven't been to the article Scotland, since. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just letting ya know, I'm gonna hang back for awhile, from the BI & Roi disputes (but I'll keep watching). GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll step in when you think you can help things out again - it's just an impasse. Unfortunately the impasse is going on in around 4 different places right now! Partly my fault for not keeping out of the other conversations - but people were clearly starting to ignore WP:BITASK, and following their chosen routes elsewhere. HighKing seems to like the guiedline at least, and has made a good edit on it. Not sure if he likes it all though. I should look and see where CarterBar has got to (he can be reasonable too) - the whole eventual 'locked article' phase all initially began with those two arguing in various Talks. Perhaps all they needed was a guideline to follow. I might gamble that Tharkuncoll is 'OK enough' with it, and push it forward at some point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

British Isles Mediation

Do you still require mediation? SilkTork *^YES! 14:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've closed it as the discussion in it has died. It's a policy/guideline matter underneath it all (ROI-usage and what is allowed in "geography" articles). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Snowded still wants to continue this. I don't particularly, and I think it could potentially cause mayhem now, but I did originally open it I suppose, and I'm certainly not going to be publically told that I've guiltily 'backed out'. So it has to be re-opened - can you do this? Sorry it's in such poor faith, but I'm afraid it simply is as far as I'm concerned. I won't be pulling any punches about any non-neutral who involves themselves. I've always been open and honest as an editor, and when there's no good faith left, there's no good faith left. If nothing much happens in it (and with any luck this will be the case - the original argument is pure policy as far as I'm concerned now) maybe it can just stay open? I don't want me ending to soon it to be an issue again.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll re-open the case. It looks interesting, and what you are doing with creating the taskforce will be of immense help. When I was first on Wikipedia in 2006 I did encounter some of the problems regarding the terminology of the British Isles when dealing with creating categories, so I am aware of the issues, if not exactly familiar with them. What I have read so far looks promising. SilkTork *^YES! 14:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just a quick note then- I think that most people involved in this can be reasonable outside of the 'British' issue (both myself and Snowded included) - I'm sure you realise that this is a case where it is very hard to be active in and also have no 'POV'. I see myself as 'in the middle' with it (which is why I've taken so much on - I just want a broad and fair guideline) but I concede I am pro-British (in the underlying sense of national identity - this spills over with us all, and effects all the UK articles). With the BI term I am mainly pragmatic - I wish it didn't exist, but it does. As for accusations of full-independence nationalist bias etc, I admit I do make them from time to time. Not clever I know, but it gets frustrating. It's all impossible to prove, of course, hence all the bubbling over with most of us every now and again. Anyway, I can take reasoned criticism on the chin. All I'd expect really is an objective view. I'll be on WP most of this evening, looking at the flora issue with the guideline, and the British Isles article itself (which clearly needs to be in tune with any guideline we manage to put together). I'll only re-enter the MEDCAB if Snowded does. It still may be the case that it doesn't get used. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to deal with this via talk-pages or any place that's convenient. The only thing I won't do is get involved in emails. There is no accountancy trial with emails.

Here are some questions I'd like you to address:

1. What, in a nut shell, would you like to happen that you feel is being prevented from happening?
2. Who or what is responsible from preventing it from happening?
3. Why do you feel it is being prevented from happening?

I'm initially talking to you and Snowded. Who else should I be talking with? SilkTork *^YES! 14:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Biota of the British Isles

Think I'm a bit of a push-over, that's the fourth time I've changed the title! If other projects/tasks are using British Isles then I'm happy with that. Hope to have your help with it all. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been a thorny issue politically in the past, but mainly because Wikipedia is entirely consensus-driven and we have to acknowledge the voices who edit here. Sometimes people get over-cautious in geography articles, but 'British Isles' is still a standard as a 'technical' (ie not political) word. The new proposed guidelines should help with it all - especially when people are over cautious in using it as a technical term: but it's used this way the world over in geography, geology, archaeology and natural history related instances. As your article is geographical, stick to BI per consistency and you'll be fine. I'm looking more at geography articles on the whole these days, so will give yours a look. If anyone does protest over you using BI (which is unlikely I think), just offer comparative examples (List of islands in the British Isles, List of mountains of the British Isles by relative height, etc) and don't be perturbed. It's not likely to happen with the taskforce up and running anyway, and plenty of people will back you up if it did.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I believe you want Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. If you want to use Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, you need two editors to complain about me, and if you get rejected and put up another request on Wikiquette Alerts afterwards, you might be seen as forum shopping (though it shouldn't apply). I don't know which one you're trying, though, so I'm making an assumption of "just in case". --Raijinili (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are not bothered about this at all are you? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If I believe my comments will be consistent with consensus, why should I be worried? --Raijinili (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So what's happening with this dispute? --Raijinili (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I paused the discussion because you said you would take me to an admin or do some kind of dispute resolution. To ignore me now would be highly discourteous. --Raijinili (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had more important things to do, but I'll try and get around to it tomorrow. How old are you, may I ask? --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Old enough to know why you would ask that. --Raijinili (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

US / UK English

Can you explain your revert? The article is currently mostly US English with a handful of UK words here and there. Per WP:ENGVAR, the article should be one or other other. If you have a good case (see the guideline) for it being in UK English (my own flavour), then there are quite a number of words that need to be converted from the US form. Since the article is at FAC, this is something that should be sorted out. Colin°^Talk 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You seemed to suggest in your edit note that it has been consciously written in US English, but I've contributed a lot of prose over the past year (over two years in total I should say, if being precise), and it's all been in British/International English. Ironically, it's been left in by the many Americans who contribute to the article (I say ironically as you've said you use British English yourself!). I wasn't aware that it had to be one or the other for FA status (and I'm not a huge fan of FA's, by the way). If anything, it would have to be 'International English' for an issue such as this, surely? A US-specific or US-heavy (in weight terms) article, OK - but Alzheimer's disease? I'd feel extremely cheesed off it it was all made to be uniformly US-English. What's wrong with both? AD is not country-specific after all. Of the two - I would have to favour International English. --19:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Ireland/ROI polls

Hi Matt, I see you added a new question to the poll. Would you mind withdrawing this question for now until we can see where we stand with current practice. If consensus shows that current practice needs some tweaks, we can open another poll (which I believe you are prempting) and try to work out the scope of tweaks required. There's nothing wrong with your question other than it presupposes a result of the current poll. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it in the way it's written (I can re-write it)? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what question you're asking - are you asking if it's OK to use different terms in the text of various articles, all piped back to whatever article talks about the state? Or are you asking if it's OK to have lots of articles (e.g. Ireland (state), Ireland (republic), etc) all redirecting back? Does this not preempt the result of Poll 3 just a little? It's no big deal - it's probably not going to make any difference either way. I've no problem to leave it as it is for now, although my preference is to separate discussions from polls, and I see you've added a comment into your question... :-) --HighKing (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your comment about striking the poll. I'm going to go ahead and do this for now. I expect that if we need a follow-on poll though, we'll be using a similar question to the one you just posed. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I find peoples reactions sometimes cringing to read - maybe striking it is best for now. Can you clarify polls 2 and 3 - I still find them confusing. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. The polls are supposed to be simple (oh well...). It's related to the discussions that have been ongoing in a number of places. I hoped to build from what we can agree on, and ask questions to determine (narrow down) what we disagree on. The poll is to try to narrow down exactly what is the problem with the term "Republic of Ireland", or even if any problem actually exists. If no problem exists, we could return to the British Isles questions, happy in the knowledge that nobody objects to using the term "Republic of Ireland". Uf there are objections, the next task will be to try to find a compromise (and perhaps your skills will come in handy here). --HighKing (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As usual, I'm having a thick-headed moment. I preffer no pipelinking for RoI; therefore, how would I vote? GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Against" in Poll 1. I think the problem with these set of Polls is that they are just asking 3 particular questions - they are not really giving people a set of options per se. They perhaps should be called "Questions", rather than "Polls". I think they are at least clearer in meaning now anyway. What do you think? A problem could be that they look like they are leading somewhere, and people can feel a bit disconcerted by that. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt - it was very difficult but I was deliberately trying to present 3 questions (and yes, Questions would have been better than Polls) without offering a choice of responses. Based on the responses we might receive to the questions, we may decide to explore options in the future, and finally present the choices as a poll.

In a nutshell, the way I read it - if you want to keep what's there, vote that you agree with everything. If you want to see changes, decide where you'd like options and disagree. Thanks for your help earlier. --HighKing (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's alright. When you do things like this you have to expect some people to grumble. I thought they are now what you originally intended! Out of curiosity, where do they differ? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I misread the fist line of your of your Clarification and Examples section! I'm glad I managed to keep to your intentions with my amendments (apart form my first one, possibly, which PureEditor changed back). I know some people are starting to be a bit funny now, but make sure you keep faith in the polls now we have them. Some people just don't want to be pinned down, I think. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've chosen to give a thumbs-down to pipelinking RoI (unless my deal is adopted). I've come to the conclusion, the RoI & BI disputes are unsolvable (thus my reason for proposing a trade-off). GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if Republic of Ireland is changed to "Ireland (state)" the guideline will be more easily passed - which is effectively what we would be trading. But I don't think Sarah777 (for example) would trade the full use of 'British Isles' in return for getting the ultimately underwhelming 'Ireland (state)' - it would have to at least be for the current BI guideline, as it has at least some restrictions on BI's use! There will always be some arguments in the future of course, even with the guideline - but nowhere near as many.

I personally don't see it as up to me what the Ireland (state) article is called (I probably wouldn't vote) - but as long as it is called ROI, I'm going to use ROI as a term! It is eminently sensible, especially when formulating examples for guidelines. If the Irish article was called Ireland (state), I would still structure the guideline around that political term, rather than the far too awkward 'geographical' island of Ireland. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO, there'll be more blockings & less page protections in the future. That's something I'm increasingly warming up to (no surprise, as I dislike edit-wars). It's not something popular (indeed, Administrators will attest to that), but it will be necessary. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you on that. I think that not just editors, but admin too will be made to 'toughen up' (in a stricter, "letter of the law" sense of the word), which won't be a bad thing either. I think admins can be too flexible with the current ambiguities, and are too tempted to side with/against favoured editors. General admin should be more like law enforcers (ie bobbies on the beat), and less like diplomats or lawyers. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the extremists must conform to NPOV. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we delete them? The questions have changed!The context has changed! The bindingness has changed! Their are questions not included in the vote! It reads like a case study for WP:Vote Gnevin (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would have to be "we" deleting them for a start! Deleting them has already been proposed (by myself per HighKing - who said he would be OK with starting again) but someone immediately objected. We simply can't do it now - it's gone too far, surely. I will today message everyone who has voted that it’s all been amended - as I promised to do. That should correct things. When people originally have different ideas of the 'questions' there is no "easy" way to rectify it - but we are working it out. You can propose us deleting them yourself - but I can't see how it would be productive. It's certainly a better approach than just deleting them! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it iconic that you of all people are supporting this vote given My main issues with Wikipedia:Headcounting at AfD's So head counting else where is ok? The nature of this vote should of been discussed , the quested agreed upon, the scope, limits and bindingness of its all agreed in advance and even then I would have reservations with its as voting isn't helping the situation , how ever i can see how a straw poll correctly phrased could point the way.Gnevin (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

They took me by surprise I must admit, and when I first saw them a number of people had already voted - so arguing for their removal was certainly pointless. I originally tried to extend them with another poll to try and fill them out, but it didn't work (so my extra poll was deleted) I think making them "Questions" was the best solution, and they are pretty harmless now.

I've added that 'disclaimer' and will message those people tonight - I have to get off right now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK but Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)#.22Question_4.22_-Start_again_:Since_you_are_all_in_a_voting_mood would be my preferred way forward Gnevin (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You poll is fine. I've changed the title to "Poll.." though - as this one IS a poll - it's not a 'Question 4'! I really have to go now.. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)It was bad timing on my part to have patchy net access, but thanks for keeping things on track and for not letting a simple set of questions spiral too much into a farce --HighKing (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

talk:Republic of Ireland

Some of your comments have been removed by Sarah777. I reverted him once. Djegan (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt. Yes, I take your point about notifying you before re-formatting at Ireland package deal. There was a lack of courtesy there and I apologise. On the other hand, In the normal way it would have been courteous, but you have shown below that you are not deserving of any courtesy. Besides, you were offline for 14 hours and an awful lot of posts were added in that time, so it was essential to separate out the sections quickly or the whole thing would have become confused with nobody knowing quite what they were voting on, or how the vote stood. So even if I had notified you here, waiting for a reply would not have been an option. Scolaire (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see why it needed to be done for sure, but I should have had at very least a courtesy message - especially as you are an 'Oppose' vote for Pete's sake! And have more than pissed me off before.

The main problem for me is that you had two errors in you initial oppose assessment - and at least one other editor has said "oppose per Scolaire", and another has further mistudertood the word 'republic' as being "ingenuity" by me. The reason I suggested "republic of Ireland" (small 'r") wasn't ingenuity at all, but because Enclyclopedia Britannica use it all the way through their "Ireland" (as a state) article! Literally all the way through.

Can you see how frustrating it is to all these 'opposes' when I know a number could be misguided? I don't think it will help anyone if this poll is seen as yet another 'cock up'. Maybe I should have waited and did it properly myself - but I really edit on British issues, not 'specifically' Irish ones. I don't see the republic on its own as my business, and I only deal with it if it crosses my path (like on football for example, eh?). Isn't it ironic how certain Irish matters keep stepping on other people's toes, just the way terms like British Isles do. Nobody smells of roses - and certainly not you. I think we should sort it all myself. I trust you agree.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted only to apologise and explain. I think your response is most ungracious! Of course I'm aware that I "more than pissed you off before", and I know you are aware it was not a one-way street. I thought you would be grown-up enough to let that go - it's water under the bridge! And "Nobody smells of roses - and certainly not you" is dangerously close to a personal attack! The people who agreed with me down the line simply agree with me; I didn't lead them down the garden path just by not being aware that "republic" is used in Britannica! Anyway, whatever about notifying you about re-formatting, I certainly don't need your permission to reply to your suggestion! You are to be commended for trying to come up with a compromise solution, and your proposal does have merits, but please try to keep a sense of proportion. All discussion is good, and somebody not agreeing with everything you say is not an attack on your integrity. BTW I don't understand "I think we should sort it all myself." Scolaire (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

By "I think we should sort it all myself." I mean all the disruption to the articles surrounding Irish matters. Especially when 'British Isles' is invlolved (article locks etc). "ROI" is being changed to a pipe-linked "Ireland" as we speak, and in full knowledge that others don't like it, and it's an issue of the moment. Etc.

I'll copy my first line again here, as you simply didn't read it:

• (Reasons first): Encyclopaedia Britannica redirected my search of “Republic of Ireland” to an article called "Ireland" but uses “republic of Ireland” (small caps) throughout it. I like this ‘small cap’ option. I also noticed that Britannica doesn’t at all have an Ireland (as island) article – I’ve double checked. They have very small Great Britain and British Isles articles (basically link pages), but no article for the island of Ireland. I also notice that the Wikipedia Ireland (as island) article is mostly information forked from the Republic of Ireland article."

If you bothered to read ANY of my "(Reasons first)" you will have seen that Encyclopaedia Britannica uses the small 'r'. Instead of reading you hurriedly made it its own poll, and proceeded to mislead people on two counts. If got every right to be cynical - you neither read it properly (at all?), nor contacted me of your actions. And all that knowing how badly I felt about you over the total-gross 'association football' fisaco. Not too clever of you - no? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I did read that bit at the beginning, but it had gone out of my head by the time I replied! Weird! I think what it was was, when I said "nobody, but nobody, uses "republic of Ireland" with a small r" I meant people, in writing generally, for instance on WP, and then later, as I say, the reference to Britannica had gone out of my head. Of course, I don't blame you for thinking I didn't read it, but still you have no right to say "If you bothered to read ANY of my "(Reasons first)"" or "Instead of reading you hurriedly made it its own poll" or "proceeded to mislead people" or "you neither read it properly (at all?)". I began by being pleasant and apologising, and I have tried to remain civil even in the face of your provocation, but you have maintained your very unpleasant tone throughout. Very well, I withdraw my apology. Given your attitude, I don't owe you any courtesy at all. Scolaire (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PS "I think we should sort it all myself" is not English. I'm assuming you didn't mean "we" (you and I) should sort it all, so you can only have meant "I should sort it all myself." In other words, anything I disagree with is "disruption to the articles" and I should be given dictatorial powers so that I can make it look the way it should. Not too clever of you - no? Scolaire (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the preceding sentences, "I think we should sort it all myself" (regarding all the issues I described) is clear enough, I think. You only had to ask me to clarify - and you did - so what's the issue? Maybe you could try slowing down and reading things a bit more carefully. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say to you. Scolaire (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

An island of Ireland redirect to Republic of Ireland? Suggest an island of Ireland redirect to Northern Ireland aswell (for less familiar readers sake). GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you've fixed the redirect to Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to copy the redirect code from Ireland (island) but it's now a disambiguation page, so it no longer has the code. I took it from Ireland (state) in a hurry and forgot to remove the "Republic" bit! Glad you noticed and not somebody else. I can just see the toys whizzing past my head!--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Irelands (republic & island)

The island article must not be moved. The island has held the name the longest (way before the creation of the Republic of Ireland & Northern Ireland). However, if the consensus is to move? I won't try to prevent it. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PS- You've a double posting at Talk: Republic of Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks btw - I'm trying to reply to as much as I can. Still not seen a convincing argument against it yet! People are referring to "all their past discussion" without elucidating, which is always a pain. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are right. "Ireland" was the name of the the state/nation/country before the British invaded. ROI was a return to that, minus Northern Ireland. Was the word "Ireland" originally a name for the people, or the for land mass? Do you see what I mean? I think it was originally a name for a "nation" that covered the island and the two became synonymous. But "Ireland" was originally the name of the nation/people.

And is a lump of rock really more important than a people, anyway, even if the island was called "Ireland" first? But I'm sure it was the name for the nation of Irish.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire - point by point analysis

Re answering my analysis point by point, you could copy and paste each point, and then reply underneath it. It would save any further edit-warring. Scolaire (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is too personal: You keep aluding to me. It is simply too much, Scolaire - too OTT. I will answer under each point. If you remove my comments you again I will report you. It's no big deal - you just have to deal with it. You cannot remove my posts.

Please don't try me here - I have nothing by right on my side in every element of this, you must realise that. You simply can't make these formatting stipulations. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)