User talk:Matt Lewis

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

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

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

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

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

Opposing the Guideline on UK Nationality naming

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

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

Core Contest

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

Guideline question

Here are the answers to the questions I would give:

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

What do you think?

Bensaccount 22:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Alzheimer's

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

Hi. I haven't read it for ages and it is surprising what you notice. I'll go through the whole thing looking for typos etc. My 'big thing' is how well a layman can read the layman-relevant parts of the topic, so I'll probably be re-writing the odd bit too (I've just done a little already - on a part I feel is of primary interest to everyone reading the article). Feel free to correct any mistakes, or argue over words used etc. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was also rewritting the stages part. I had done the predementia and middle stage, but I still have to go with the advanced stage. Right now I don´t have much time, so feel free to begin with it, however I think its priority one to find proper citations (pubmed-abstracts) for any assertion we make. Respective to the layman understanding I believe the most difficult part is pathophisiology. I have asked in the talkpge for somebody to do an easy and understandable summary of that part but nobody has done it yet. Best regards and sorry for my typos mistakes. --Garrondo (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I like your Prognosis heading - I was searching for that word last night. RE mid-stage aggression, I've thus far found examples as forum-style messages - not ideal for citations unfortunately. I've seen it with my own eyes too, but of course citations don't work like that either. The aggression effects all the people surrounding AD emotionally - as much as the memory lapses in my experience, so I feel it does need explaining that it can occur in the mid stages too. For certain people, it could even occur in what appears an early stage. Many factors clearly make people react individually to AD IMO, but it’s hard to find written evidence that includes enough data (compared symptoms (and lack of symptoms), period since diagnosis etc) – though you do occasionally see the odd caveat around (and at least we have one ourselves now).

To be honest, I never feel entirely happy with the stage model every time I read it, but I suppose it helps to give an overall picture. Unfortunately it was used by the NHS as a basis for prescribing Donepezil and other drugs of that type. The UK gov controversially stopped the prescription to less than ‘moderate’ stages, with drug expense and effect factored. My worry that people can make a 'stage' diagnosis based on how people appear to fit in with a simple model – when the symptoms clearly cross over the stages as people deal with them differently both physically and psychologically. As we don't know how and when AD starts (and it has such widely varying lifecycles within the stage model too) it seems too flawed to base such important decisions as saving on the cost of Aricept on. The stage model appears like a simple chronological one – but the world of AD is clearly a lot more complicated than that. If there are considered criticisms out there, they certainly should be covered here IMO.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please answer me in my talk page... I don´t watch every talk page of every editor and I found your answer by chance. I agree that the stage model is not perfect but that happens with any kind of classification based on syntoms as symtoms are quite variable in most diseases. I agree therefore that is quite dangerous to take decisions based on it. However I believe its an interesting model to show the prototypic evolution of the disease. Any model is a simplification of reality and its there precisely where it lays its strongest and weakest points. I´m sure that agression appears also sometimes in the early stage, but its in the break point in the continum between the medium and last stage when its more common, since its usually related to an important decrease in executive functions capacities. I decided to leave it in the last stage but if you find a ref that it says that this symtom is usually categorized in the medium stage feel free to move it. You could probably find something if you look for neuropsychiatry and alzheimer in pubmed.

Other thing: What do you mean with IMO? I didn´t understand you.

Finally I wanted to tell you that I have proposed a change on the media and famous people section (see talk page) and I wanted your opinion. I don´t like how it is right now one name or title after another. I believe that me approach is far more readeable.

--Garrondo (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (please answer in my talkpage). Best regards.

Hi Matt, thanks for your suggestion about how to post an article about Cognitive Retention Therapy i have posted it now, would you be able to give me some feedback or opinions on it or help me "spruce it up" a bit? -Chris Ashby | Talk 21:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I give it a look and maybe help - the problem is I sometimes offer promises I can't keep! There's plenty to do on Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright here is another much more unbiased approach, tell me if you think this is better. Cognitive therapies for dementia -Chris Ashby | Talk 18:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashby82 (talk • contribs)

I had a look at them both now - sorry for delay. My WP time's been caught up elsewhere. I've made a few contributions, and have left comments in the Talk pages. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you need to get your user page going. Ideally, declare your interest, as you did on the AD page. Your name will stop being red too! --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

You're just working slightly too fast for Wikipedia, Garrondo! I do appreciate your dedication (and the reasons for it)- so hope you don't think I am too critical. Ironically, Ive been caught up in an AfD (Article for Deletion) elsewhere - which is where a lot of my WP time has gone the past few days. They are only up 5 days maximum before a decision is made.

People are often occasionally quick to recommend articles for deletion - so I'm sure it will be OK. I'll put my support down to rename and help improve it. Didn't you like the idea of the "Sociological and cultural aspects of Alzheimer's" as per Autism? If you had put Autism being a FA in the new discussion page, I doubt it would be up for deletion! Really we need to build some structure as well as get in the info - it's hard us all working like this though, I know (different countries/work hours/priorities etc - and things can go backwards when others jump in!). It does get slow sometimes, but I think we are on the right track and it will build properly now. I do have the dedication (like yourself), I just have to work out the application part. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles

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

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

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

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

Wndl42 (his heading changed)

Fyi, the Wikiquette noticeboard has been updated as follows:

see here

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

ROFL! MurphiaMan (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt, just wanted to share a final thought before the outcome of the Wikiquette alert. Everybody has a POV, yours appears to include a lot of passion over the your feelings about Islam, and I can see that from your talk page and from your edit history. When conflicts arise, it's natural to assume others have POVs, since we all do, but don't assume bad faith. Suggest you review WP:AGF for context.

Next time, before posting personal attacks on other user's talk pages, perhaps spending a few minutes reading their talk pages and reviewing their edit history will help you get to know your fellow editors and prevent situations like this. Had you read even just the talk page entry immediately above your entry, you'd have had a chance to get to know me before winding up in this unfortunate situation. You'd also have a chance to see how editors with polar opposite POV's can nonetheless get along. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The cake mixture and the fruit! Help! I had to take the article off my watchlist it started looking so crackers. I stuck with it back to consensus, then he pulled his jumbo paint set out. He kept gettting his wrist slapped for his own complaint too - finally for blackmailing me! hhh I can laugh now. Plenty of other stuff to do.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've changed his 'Alert' heading because he was scolded for filing it - and it's occured to me how bad this page is looking! I'm a nice guy! --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RolandR

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RolandR

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

Yes - can you sort something out with the "Roland Rance" character? He appears on my watchlist all the time with a slight variation on his name, and is always vandalising articles I'm interested in. Is it because he moves around - what's the story? Is he abusing RolandR? --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, okay the page has been deleted. Not sure about the Roland Rance person you mention (it doesn't exist), did you mean the banned user Runtshit? Rudget. 20:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you talk to RolandR about a connection? Reading the above it looks like he has had some problems.

I remember the sockpuppeteer as different variations of "Roland Rance", attacking various left wing articles.

Looking down the George Galloway history, I can see: Arrest pol pot stoogerance, Vivisect rance, Waterboard Rance17, Waterboard Rance15, Waterboard Rance14, Waterboard Rance12, Waterboard Rance, Rancejailed, Ranceretarded), TheRanceshit, Bugger derance, Upyoursrance, Ranceintoilet, Potty rance, Rancedung

He's also been Waterboard rance 9, Waterboard Rance12 on Respect coalition page etc... --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it is Runtshit (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Runtshit) - see RolandR's message above. He nearly alwasy uses 'rance' is some way. This is all going a bit fast for me - sorry! --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

• Matt, please keep the discussion on topic and avoid the use of emotive terms designed to incite arguments. Please keep your tone civil - you comment of keep looking down sailor borders on a personal attack. I have no personal beef with you, but I can't help but feel that because you have been passionate about your POV for so long, you are very aggressive and antagonistic in your replies, and reading insults and challenges into comments where none are intended. And sure, one or two people appear to deliberately try to goad everyone into an argument, but the rest of us can avoid it... Bardcom (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, well I initially thought your pretty calm and civil - but after you strongly took the mick out of my atlas example (which was perfectly reasonable surely) I thought you were joining in the silly games, and playing at being civil as a wind-up! - sorry if I got it wrong. You began with "Where do I start?" and went on to suggest that all my arguments were illogical and foolish! Lots of people play games on WP - sometimes I ignore them - sometimes I hit them head on. It's only the argument that matters to me, and usually only because it has some kind of personal importance. Some people jump from between being very agressive and OTT, into sudden lightheartedness - and often they incite, you are right. Whatever I am like myself, at least myself I keep hold of everyone's points (when people spend all of 2 seconds 'reading' my comments/replies is the really frustrating thing to me!). My Land ahoyyy/"sailor" comment was just supposed to be a 'flat earth' reference, btw (to show how much I find the removal of "British Isles" cultish and obscure) - it don't know if it sounded like anything else! (sorry if it did though!) --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks Matt. Yeah, the sailor comment is mostly harmless when you put it into that context :-) Bardcom (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the sailor comment is harmless, the first two sentences of this edit are not acceptable behaviour. Please don't repeat it. Waggers (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How rude, sanctimonious, and provocative is all that? I must assume you followed the conversation that provoked my "dimwit" comment? Provocation is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and the whole picture is considered at arbitration. I have since been called a "moron" by that person, and the deliberately-repeated offending comment that lead to my "repetition of a dim-wit" reaction has been childishly repeated again since (and without any hint of subtlety). Do you think that is acceptable behaviour? It is provocation - I can deal with up-front, but I won't have my Talk page treated like this.

I will warn you over your "Whether or not the sailor comment is harmless" - you must 'assume good faith', and not suggest I am insincere: I apologised for any offence I might have caused Bardcom, which he accepted in good humour - you have no right to bring back up in an insinuating way. I have to ask myself why would you want to offend and upset me by 'wading in' this manner, and sullying my Talk page. I am entitled to be very suspicious here, and I'm too busy to be provoked and bullied from wide angles. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Harbouring anamosity towards a past or present Britain is not the best foundation to instigate something like this ..." - Quite right, but that's not what the substance of it is. Yesterday, a strange event occurred. A (southern) Irish politician - grandson of an Old IRA volunteer, nephew of a government minister expelled for running guns to the Provisional IRA in the 70's, from the party with the strongest roots to original Sinn Féin and known in English as "the Republician Party" - was sent as an envoy to the North to convince Northern Unionists to take their seats in an assembly for the government of Britain and Ireland as one. Truly bizarre!

In that article, you might notice that that assembly is looking at it's name. Names are great definers. (There's an argument over at Talk:United Kingdom over the foundation date for the UK, the substance of which is whether a small or capital 'u' appeared in name of the 1707 state.) Again, in that body, as well as the British-Irish Council, the term "British Isles" is studiously avoided. Though patently not through animosity. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt...

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

Matt, I've responded in detail at United States journalism scandals, can we continue to discuss before you remove links from related articles? (Insight magazine) Thanks...WNDL42 (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link because it links to a locked page that is frozen in an objectionable state - it's simply not good form to keep a "see also" link in under those circumstances! I happen not to think it's a needed link anyway. The page is merely a list of "scandals" that are covered om the main pages anyway - so what's the point of using it as a "see also"? I just means more to protect, and more for the unscrupulous to try and control.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but the "see also" is needed to help our readers understand the motives behind the scandal.

Echo chamber is not "original research"

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Right's Echo Chamber

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

---

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

WNDL, I't not saying the "Echo chamber effect" doesn't exist (though I'd not heard the term, and must question its real-terms popularity). It's the way you've gone about heavily "highlghting" it as a fact here, that falls under "Original Research" to me. As I said many times - we are not journalists!!!! It might be better for point out "Weight" etc (see below). Also, you have a determined and personal approach that has not been condusive to consensus IMO. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine article.

Some policy:

WP:No Point of View - Undue Weight (Policy) - Always the starting point.

WP:No Original Research (Policy) - Always worth a refresher.

WP:Wikipedia is not a News report (Policy) - We are not journalists.

WP:Let the facts speak for themselves (Policy) - Advises against over-description of facts that are already simple, well-covered and conclusive.

WP:Neutrality and Verifiability (Policy) - Shows how an abundance of passable citations cannot negate fundamental neutrality issues.

It's no great accusation to question Original Research, or to complain that time has been wasted - please don't get so offended. Try and see it from my point of view.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt,

(1) I'm already supporting you on the madrassah angle, I appreciate (and even agree) with your POV.

(2) None of the policies you cite above have anything to do with whether or not "echo chamber" belongs in the article or not, and I have no clue why you cite them.

(3) the "Echo chamber media effect" in this context is notable, relevant, established and supported by thousands of reliable sources.

Perhaps you should (a) analyze the comments and sources I've given you and (b) tell me why you think they are invalid instead of posting policies -- all of which, I can assure you, I am thoroughly familiar with.

Honestly...I'm not sure what you are arguing for/against, or with whom you are arguing. My simple request...don't call it "original research" after you have been shown that it's NOT. Finally, may I ask if you took time to click the links I provided before you said "I'd not heard the term, and must question its real-terms popularity". Please, click here, and examine the explicit query construction I used, and then click the search button and examine 1, 10, 100, or 1,000 of the 1,310 references you will then see, and decide for yourself the question of "real-terms popularity". All I can do is give you the evidence, I can't make you look at it or force you to agree with it. Let's (please) move on? You and I have important things to go off and agree on [ ;-) ]. WNDL42 (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kewords for a Google search would have to be: myung media "echo chamber" -wikipedia. If you type that in you get 986. Click on "page 5" (you must click on the last or latter pages with Google to get the REAL figure) and you get 318. Most of those are blogs. Do the major papers use it? That's what I meant by "real-terms" popularity. It is quite easy to get a seemingly 'high' figure on Google, especially as it trawls so much - including millions of mirrored pages etc.

Surprisingly, if you search for: "echo chamber" -wikipedia: Google gives "about 472,000" results. Click on page 10 and the total become 843! So not hugely used even on its own - and how much outside of the USA, I wonder? As "echo chamber" was orginally to do with sound effects - many people refer to that. There is a band by the name too (so lots of youtube etc). Comparing the 318 "myung media" figure with the 'mixed' total of 843 is interesting, especially with the amount of blogs involved. Perhaps the word "echo chamber" has grown via a kind-of "echo chamber" effect!!!

"Madrassa" is my main issue anyway - it's the only reason I came beack to the Obama articles. You can do what you want with the "echo chamber effect" as far as I'm concerned - I've got too many other pages on my watchlist to bother arguing over something I would normally agree with conversationally! You are right - we must focus on "madrassa". --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

AD treatment

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

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

Right, I changed the Treatment section lead too. That's where the palliative care comment belongs.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please visit Talk:Alzheimer's disease. We're discussing a topic you likely will find to be of interest.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - this has to be covered. I'm off out in a bit, but I'll read through it and try and comment. I'll correct your last comment to it, btw - it's got a strikethrough in it that looks like a typo(?). --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Shortened block on WNDL42

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

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

Make sure you read this before you act..well, if you act. Have a good sleep. Dreadstar † 05:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Notification: AfD on List of United States journalism scandals

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

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

List of United States journalism scandals

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

Why oppose an outline on Wales?

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

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

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

Wales talk archived

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

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

I think putting it back is best, as some were only days old (so we can't be certain) and the page isn't particulaly long yet. I had a hunch you were doing what you say - but surely you see the irony for me though? I did see your lengthened outline - but havent had time to study it yet.

I can bend on 'Etymology' (though I don't see why it's so important that it comes first, when many other articles don't have it first - or even at all in section form, or have it within a sub-article) but I'd like us to remove what I see as a slight but firm 'union-bias' out of the article (the weight towards highlighting words like Principality). For me it's all about Wales as a living country first and foremost. Wales is a living and developing country - not a note in history. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put my above reply in Wales Talk as we are discussing it there too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive replied as well on the Talk:Wales. But I did wish for you to understand my perspective. As an American my point of view is of no real consequence for Wales.... but I sympathize with an independence of Wales, and prehaps with a restored 'Welsh prince of Wales' as Saunders Lewis and others have. But that is the romantic historian in meDrachenfyre (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a realist - the idea of princeship is a bit of a nonsense to me I’m afraid. I’m very Welsh, but have always thought Britain in the modern age works (excepting NI). It’s certainly been too London-centric over the years, and has been over-controlled by a right-wing govt lately – but the world will be the worse without it (though it might not seem that way looking at the news). The anglo-celtic symbiosis (that had to happen historically) has given the world a great deal. I have the ability and the right to feel both Welsh and British (and simply a human too – my real calling in life). When I look at the big picture of the life around me (esp culturally) - it's simply British. It's not European - it's certainly Welsh on an immediate level, but over that it is simply and clearly British - and I don't wish to remove that element (though I do want more Assembly power). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Duely noted my friend :) . I do have great respect for the 'anglo-celtic symbiosis', as you mention, and recognize the contrabutions that, that interchange between cultures have produced. Weather Scotland and Wales become independent or not, in this day and age, I think there will continue to be an interchange of ideas and culture, a working together, so it becomes somewhat of a mute point. Except when one considers the self-determination of a people (witness Kosovo). I look forward to working with you on the Wales page. I think our joint goal is to create a professional page that distinguishes Wales♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 02:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, until the BBC Wales redid their home page, there was a section called BBC Wales News, and BBC Wales Sport. on the BBC Scotland homepage you still see BBC Scottish News and BBC Scottish Sports. After the BBC Wales homepage redid their page, they dropped the 'Wales' part of the News and Sports page.... it took me a minute to realize that they still linked to Welsh news and sport. Now it simply reads BBC News, and BBC Sports on the BBC Wales homepage. Have you noticed this? As someone involved in the media I thought you might have. I have sent a 'complaint' hoping that it was a simple oversight... and showed them the BBC Scottish news... but they simply responded they will pass the information along. What are your thoughts on that? I mean... is it not confusing not to have the 'Wales' as part of the title for news coverage of Wales interest?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 02:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

UK MP's Voting record

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

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

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

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

Copying and pasting material from other websites is not acceptable. Facts are public domain. The presentation of those facts (ie, the exact same issues in the exact same order and nearly the exact same wording) is copyrightable. Please do not re-add it unless you write it in your own words. My suggestion for avoiding plagiarism is that you don't even have the source website up when you write it - write whatever it is you want to write, then go back and correct spelling/facts/whatever based on the source. That way, you completely avoid any possibility of copying. --B (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't actually "copy/pasted" - see my NOTE below. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. It wasn't me who put them up (though I strongly support their inclusion) - so I wasn't aware they were directly 'copied and pasted'! I will rearrange the order and slightly re-word them (which should be enough, given these are freely-available statistics). Thanks for the advice. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest going much further than that. Slightly rewording is still a derivative work. I would suggest incorporating facts from other sources (for example, issues mentioned on other websites) or presenting a select group of key issues along with examples. You could write something like this:

“ Lammy is a strong supporter of XYZ, for which he co-sponsored the XYZ Reform Act of 2002.[1] He voted against ABC both times it came up and told supporters, "ABC is an unmitigated disaster for our country."[2] He is most known for his moderate position on 123, where he brokered the 123 Compromise Act of 2005, a bipartisan resolution that ended 123 abuse.[3] ”

This presentation is more useful to the reader and unquestionably not plagiarism. --B (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps as a summary too? theyworkforyou.com is about free public information, and is a semi-WIki that has free licences within it - I don't think there was actually a copyright problem here anyway!! Lucymarie has been caught seriously sock-puppeting before - I'll have to go my own way (ie back to consensus), sorry - no bad faith intended honestly, but I'm very serious about this information being included. These list have been on Wikipedia for a while - it is just not fair that one person can go from article to article removing them. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing on their website that I can find that makes their content available under the GFDL. "All rights reserved" is the default copyright and even if the rights holder does not explicitly claim copyright, it is automatically conferred when they produce a creative work. Consensus cannot override copyright law. The underlying facts are public domain. The presentation of those facts is copyrighted work. A test for determining whether or not your wording is a copyright violation is whether or not a person off of the street, when handed both versions, would conclude that one was derived from the other. If you include facts from other sources or completely rewrite it from scratch then you are good. --B (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The licence I saw was actually to do with adding code, but I got the impression that the whole sight was like that. I didn't have the time to fully check (I couldn't find anything either way to do with text). I do fully accept though that we must always err on the side of caution on Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Matt Lewis, it seems clear to me that you had violated WP:3RR at the David Lammy page. In future please spend more time discussing and trying to understand other editors' positions and reach compromise, and less time reverting. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC) (striking out the rest of the comment. 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

(inserted later while striking out the above comment) I'm sorry. I hadn't read the whole discussion at the noticeboard before posting that. It was unnecessary and repetitive for me to post that, since EdJohnston had already posted a similar opinion on the noticeboard and you had had an opportunity to see that when you posted there afterward, so there was no need for me to post here to make sure you were aware of it. Besides, there may be differing opinions as to whether there was a violation or not. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I did discuss it in Talk and always do, thanks (over half my edits are discussion). Are you running for admin or something? I don't appreciate your passing-by comment here, or on the 3RR page. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to bother you. Maybe I should have worded my comment more diplomatically. One reason I posted was that I thought you might not have been aware that you'd violated 3RR. Some people misunderstand how the rules work in various ways. I thought it would be good to let you know so you could avoid violations in future. I'm not an admin. I've been posting on the 3RR page and related talk pages etc. since March 20. As far as I know you're the first person who's complained about it. Non-admins regularly warn other users about 3RR violations, although usually it's with regard to pages they're involved in editing. I've seen it explicitly stated that non-admins are welcome to post opinions at WP:AN/I, (where I also post from time to time), and I believe the same applies to WP:AN/3RR.

If I'd read all your comments on the 3RR page first, I probably would have left you alone. Maybe the amount of time you spend discussing things is perfectly fine, and it's only the reverting that needed to diminish. I'm not exactly "passing by"; I'm actively and systematically helping enforce the WP:3RR policy via the noticeboard. One of the things I do, for example, is add information to incomplete reports. Sorry, but I don't think warnings necessarily have to be appreciated by the recipient to be effective as part of the enforcement process, though as I said I could have worded it more diplomatically. I've struck out the second sentence. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that, thanks. Sometimes I do get a little paranoid when people seem to 'pop up', but I can see you're a contributor to the 3RR pages now. I've apologised on the 3RR page for filing the report, as I clearly 'jumped the gun' and shouldn't have gone through the (quite laborious!) task. I admit I didn't properly consider my own reverts, as I was replacing old text and felt very righteous about it (which by the way wasn't 'copied and pasted' after all - it was clearly edited by whoever originally put it in...). As it happens, it's the first time I've gone so far as to report someone on Wikipedia. I felt that strongly about it - and it's over a number of articles, so we'll have to sort it out (clearly through Talk). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. We're all just trying to make the encyclopedia the best we can, each in our own way. Maybe when I post warnings I should mention that I help out at 3RR so people won't wonder where I suddenly appeared from! I run into the same copyright problem at Simple English Wikiquote. Even though the actual quotes of someone from long ago may not be copyrighted, a collection of their quotes is still copyrighted, because of the work that went into collecting the quotes, and even if we select some from the collection, it can still be considered copyrighted -- unless maybe it's just a small number like two or three quotes. I don't think anyone knows what the exact cutoff number is; it may depend on context. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. When I attempt at putting back a non-arguable version (regarding copyright at least - probably tomorrow now) I'll look for some other major votes to add to it. If I can't find any I'll try and write an additional paragraph, explaining what "key" entails - or why they are considered important - giving citations regarding that too, which should help. I probably should do that anyway. I'm hoping that when they are dated they will all be in a different order too - but with my luck, dating them will actually keep them in the same order! It is surely extreme to have to remove some of the votes - Trident maybe? The smoking ban?. It's like a "one-off - first come first serve" rule for the displaying of public information! I believe some formatting will do the trick. Thinking about it - extra information could be whether there was actualy a whip or not (there aren't always whips attached to votes). Maybe a table perhaps... I'll have a think.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I know. It seems kindof unjust to not be allowed to use information like that. However, that's the way it is, apparently. Rhetorical question: Who decided that these particular votes are "key"? Maybe there are some other votes that a different person compiling the list would have included. Try not to think in terms of reformatting. It's the basic information itself that's copyrighted; changing the format doesn't really help. Maybe the same information is also available on a government website or something, with different copyright status: i.e. a more complete list of votes from which you could pull out key ones based on news articles or something. (Sorry if that comment is off the mark. I haven't looked closely at the material you're working with.) Thanks for the effort you've already put into trying to keep the information in the article: a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for striking out your comment at 3RR. I appreciate it. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE on copyright and "copy and paste":

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

• Compare this: the David Lammy diff to this: the Theyworkforyou.com "David Lammy" page.

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

Discussion at WP:AN3

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

User talk:Lucy-marie‎ reported by User:Matt Lewis

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

/dev/null is explained at its article; I linked it wrongly at the report.

For the answer to your second question please read Wikipedia:AN3#What_might_happen. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel "compromised by the warning". It is only letting you know of the relevant Wikipedia rule.

However, there really wasn't any 3RR violation. There would have had to be more than three reverts to break the rule. I strongly recommend you just carry on and leave this behind. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I’ve noticed on these things there are a number of other 'Results' people put in - like "Not blocked", for example. Why could you not just do that? I have to say that as I'm spending my free time working on this article I'm still really hacked-off with your decision, and particularly how it was made - you did have other options, but clearly thought I was misbehaving at the time. Why aren't you now using the other options?

As for the warning not making a difference in the future, the way I've seen a few admins work now means that I just simply can't accept that. How do you know I won't be compromised? - I genuinely feel compromised now, because I've seen so much of how editors and admins think and work. The mistake you made regarding user:B could easily be made by another admin when seeing the "warning". It's a simple truth on Wikipedia that admins 'take on' so much that they often fail to spent the appropriate time over cases - and pre-existing tags like "nominator warned" (not to mention mischievous editors incorrect "tell-tale" comments, like B's) are irresistible information to admins eager to make a quick judgement.

I’m still genuinely insulted and wound-up by this - as I work compiling data I'm just thinking why the hell am I working in this unprofessional playground? (hence me writing this now - really - what am I doing here?). The user’s signature represents a human being - I honestly wonder what admins think at times. Does the mind get digitised? The stakes are so high on Wikipedia because of the length that some people are prepared to go to - it's a dramatic and time-consuming business sometimes even moving the shortest of distances. Admins should be as fair and un-dramatic as they can possibly be. Nobody should be warned unless they need to be warned - full stop! And saying "deal with it" or "move on" just sounds so trite to someone who's got the shitty end of the stick. I just don't see why you can't re-asses - having seen a 'Not blocked', that is so obviously the decision for this case. I am a proud person and I just can't put up with this, or it's future potential, bearing in mind the edits to UK MP's I'm planning to make.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing: Not to worry about warnings. They're really just information, letting you know what the policies and guidelines are. You can also get the same information by reading some of the policies and guidelines from time to time, as is generally considered a good idea to do. Many people are caught by surprise not knowing about the canvassing guideline, for example. I thought there were four reverts. Maybe there were only three. Maybe it depends on exactly what definition of revert you use, or maybe I made a mistake (in which case I apologize). Anyway, that's in the past. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It’s the past for now (and you've behaved admirably), but things so quickly flare-up on WP. I am working on a unique data-table that I hope will be used on all UK MP's - I'm just still peed off I've got this warning over this - and what I've seen on WP in the past keeps playing on my mind - namely hasty and unbending admin decisions (not so much to me, but certainly to others). There seems to be this foolish toughness ethos with admins of not backing-down too - I just find it so irritating. I recently spent a few disappointing days on Citizendium, which did help me see the ways Wikipedia succeeds a lot more clearly - it's just frustrating to see where WP clearly fails (like the ‘human respect’ ethos that Citizendium makes a point of saying it does so much better). --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's accusing you of not acting in good faith. It seems clear to me that you're trying to maintain and improve the article. Everything's OK. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - as long as everything is equal I'm more than happy to move back to discussion.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dev null? Don't be so bloody rude!!

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

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

Journalism scandals

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

How do you feel about keeping the renamed list a consice single-liner list, as it's been built?

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

Wales

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

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

colored debate

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

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

Moderation call

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

Wales [Cymru] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) Wales
Flag Coat of arms

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

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

Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542

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

"(ec) As you will have noticed, I have fully-protected the article on the Wrong Version to stop the edit-warring getting even more out of hand, lest 3RR blocks start getting handed out. Any other admin may feel free to revert to semi-protection (if still appropriate) if there is a measure of agreement here before the protection expires. Bencherlite^Talk 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)"

Sorry Bencherlite, but I have to be firm on this as I need Wikipedia's rules to make sense. As a lawyer I hope you understand this. 3RR keeps the page alive and deals with the warring editors. You don't have to immediately "block" anyone - you can strongly warn them on their Talk pages first, and you simply have not done this. The article must come first - so we don't lock it over basic 2-person edit wars in the info-box!. The 3RR process exists to deal with editors so the article can remain alive - why have you ignored this standard rule and locked the article? To encourage consensus? You cannot use a page-lock to force a consensus between 2 editors! What if you don't get the form of consensus you have said you still need to see? They are not obliged to find it, and sometimes people are happy with a lock - something I don't think you have considered at all (you quoted the foolish and provocative Wrong Version - but what about "The right version"? Apply some logic here). I had nothing to do with this edit war over the status of the Welsh language. Please remove the lock or I'll have to find an admin who will (which I think is an unfair position for me to be in) - I simply cannot see how it is justified at all. Wikipedia would simply grind to a halt if all admins did this!

If it is carried on, in lawyer-speak - can you supply me with a precedence on Wikipedia for this approach, as it seems clear to me that the lock is against Wikipedia principles. I also feel you have been too involved in the Talk by offering encouragement in directions. IMO, you should be dispassionate and rule-abiding - and not suddenly 'stop all play' for 3 days to try and broker a deal. You are not a school teacher either: just an admin. Unfortunately the appeasing "it's only for a couple of days" doesn't work in my life - I have had the time and inclination to edit now. And what if they (and you) do all this again? Is this how things are to go on? I'm wondering if this why the article has been so stagnant for so long. I have a life, a job and an article I want to edit - I'm really not happy here. The Wales article has been static for a long time and it is finally seeing some movement - "frustrating" is too weak a word for me now: I'm afraid the words are "puzzlement", "put out", "worried" and "increasingly annoyed". --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

1. My protection of Wales is in accordance with Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes. If you disagree, request unprotection at WP:RFPP.
2. Linking to the Wrong Version is a frequent habit of many admins; it is not meant to be provocative, merely an attempt to head-off the frequent "Why did you protect that ersion instead of the right version?"
3. The protection has brought in a number of other editors to the discussion. Suggestions are being made, and viewpoints expressed, rather than edit-warring and sniping in edit summaries. I do not think that it is worth lifting the protection early, otherwise the underlying problem will remain unresolved.
4. I strongly disagree that I am taking sides in the dispute.
5. I fully understand that protection of the article is frustrating for you. Again, if you can't wait until the protection expires, request unprotection at WP:RFPP.

Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 14:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'll ask for review at WP:AN, for transparency. Bencherlite^Talk 14:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_a_review_of_my_decision_to_protect_Wales. Bencherlite^Talk 14:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Many and often in the British Isles references

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

What if the reference said "Hitler was cool"? We must judge and weight the references. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If Cambridge and Oxford University Presses published histories of WWII by leading experts of the period that said "Hitler was cool", then I would (A) be very surprised and (B) give it some serious reflection. I haven't seen it happen and I don't expect to see it happen.

How about thinking about my point for a change? Don't call me a vandal, by the way. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Conversely Cambridge and Oxford University Presses published histories of the British Isles, by leading experts, have commented that the term "British Isles" is offensive/objectionable to many people in Ireland. So have many other reputable published authors. Of course, apparently you know better. If Matt Lewis is your real name then I suppose I could look on Amazon.com for books written by you on the topic of the British Isles and published by major publishers. How many would I find? I looked, NONE. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't question my name - you have NO reason to do that. My arguments including weight, exaggeration, the context of the account of the dissent (a historical account of dissent is just that) and asking for first-hand evidence to back it up - are simply solid and standard practice. When I look myself here I see a distinct lack of 'real life' evidence (and a paucity of quality academic evidence too, given the claim). You can shout "Oxford and Cambridge" all you like - you are studiously avoiding my points. This should not be an issue between us - you should have plenty of evidence for your "many". You need plenty of evidence in Wikipedia’s context for a word like this. Wikipedia should NOT slavishly follow the citations - it's the otherway around: Wikipedias rules come first.

And by the way, stop using people's Talk pages (including my own) to paint a picture of me as some kind of notorious troll - it's an underhand trick and you won't ever find me doing it. Pull back - read my points and keep searching for better evidence. And if you cannot find it why not question whether "many in Ireland" is the best wording here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The evidence found is already extremely good and more than sufficient for Wikipedia's standards. As you admit yourself, Wikipedia's rules come first and references from reputable scholarly sources (like - oh dear - Cambridge and Oxford) are regarded as the BEST sources for use in Wikipedia. Your search for something better is your problem. If you disagree with the sources then take it up with them. If you think that Wikipedia shouldn't regard Cambridge and Oxford published texts as solid references then take it up with the board of Wikipedia. Meantime your repeated removal of supported and referenced text is invalid and illustrates your own bias and arrogance. You believe you know better than the sources. If you are right, fine, but get your view published and then it'll be worth talking about. Meantime your view has as much weight in Wikipedia (i.e. practically none) as the view of any other unpublished partisan. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Correction from wotapalaver...Matt Lewis didn't seem to delete the reference...my mistake. He just reverted the text that is supported by the reference.Wotapalaver (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was locked for a period and we were told to discuss future changes here. You are just carrying on with the same non-consenesus changes - you can't bully me about 3RR. You and some 'handy' IP addresses are pushing it, not me.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, you may have missed it, but there was discussion, including on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. The sources I'm trying to use are reliable. As for 3RR, i can't bully anyone, I'm not an admin. Meantime, if you're accusing me of using some "handy" IP addresses in some sockpuppet form, please make the accusation formal or withdraw it. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

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

Gozitancrabz (heading changed as user banned).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would count as a 3 revert rule violation, yes. Forcing the view that there is no "mixed oppinion" about Wales being a country is propaganda, when there are clearly now plently of official sources on the page which suggest it is not. And I will "fiddle with your text" as much as need be if ever you decide to reword mine again and in the process, change the entire meaning. I have replaced the parts that did not effect my writing, but where I was listing the quotes, at the top, you, for some reason, thought it OK to reword the titles of the quotes, and the commentary afterwards, and that is not even going into the fact that you "striked" certain parts of my text, which you are in no eligible position to do. Just accept your warning and learn for next time. Cheers. Gozitancrabz (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is 3RR if I'm replacing my own Talk. Do you understand what colons(:) signify? Maybe I missed signing a point and you are confused with the line indents? I can't make any sense of your "changed my heading" comments: it's a bloody mess now though! The strikes were through clear misrepresentations - you are simply making misrepresenting statements (I'm putting it politely) - and that is totally wrong of you (just unstrike them and leave my text alone). In fact, I've not encountered another editor quite like you: you keep saying "I'm tired of repeating that x has been proved to be y" without showing any proof that x=y at all. And over the existence of a country too! You have not one shred of evidence saying that Wales is not a country - but it's the continual and inciting line you just keep repeating. You must expect a firm response if you go about like this!--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are replacing my talk with your "modifed version" that still breaks it. And have you even bothered checking the latest source additions to the section? two very official ones, which are not disputable, and that is in addition to the already existing BBC ones we have given. Goodnight. Adios! Gozitancrabz (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Two of them prove nothing and one (which seems to) you have suddenly lucked on - so I'm going to give it a go!

Anyway - adios! glad your gone. the UN Principality-over-country quote (literally the ONLY EXAMPLE you've come across after all the protracted debate) does not mean Wales is not a country: it just has Wales listed under 'Principality' rather than 'country'. There is debate on whether a Principality is a country too - and Wales is clear proof that it can be. I'm looking for a clear UN quote about this. So don't get too excited, eh?

Also - you have removed at least one paragraph of mine in all your smokescreen edits (one where I pointed out an embarrassing mistake of yours - over the "BBC one" you mention above). Hmmm - now shall I report you? You certainly deserve it. It's the not the thing to do you see pal, removing people comments from Talk pages. (esp after pretending someone else has done it to clear the way - and I have found NO evidence of me making any error at all!!!) You have lucked on the UN quote. And honestly - were would you be without it - the way you have been behaving? No wonder you are suddenly so cocky! I bet you are jumping around your bedroom! I grew up in the country in question though - so will find my best gritty smile and persevere. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

oh, are you denying that you edited my comments? And if I removed one of your comments, I appologize, and by all means, put it back (presuming you are not talking about the point where you modified my comment), and haha, no, you are not able to "report" me for that, as I made an error while trying to correct a far greater offence that you made. Report by all means if you want. I can give you the link if you want, but I can assure you things will not swing your way. Oh, and another point, please read this before you next leave a comment to me. :) Cheers. Oh, and by the way, just to let you know, I am now discussing inviting the mediation cable onto the Wales article because you are refusing to accept the UN quote, amongst others. Regards. Gozitancrabz (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you just say "haha"? I've spent a number of hours with you now and I'm seriously questioning my wisdom. You have never shown me what offense I originally made in Talk that 'forced you' to go on an totally non-policy reverting/moving/edit/revision spree - I can see none. I've started a new section on the UN quote - we can deal with it there. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

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

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

Gozitancrabz personal headings

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

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

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

User:Gozitancrabz has been banned as a sock of the banned sock user Iamandrewrice. Looks like I took my short break at the right time - we were simply being given the runaround, and everything I wrote probably just made things worse. The other one, Wikipeire, has been blocked for socks himself, so gets no respect from me: he/she could be anyone. The only issue now on this matter is whether we revise where we have "Principality". I favour simply keeping it in the last parag, which has the room to place it in it's historical context and mention the Prince of Wales too. It's a last parag thing, not a first parag one. It needs the room to be qualified too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Matt, theres no reason not to mention principality but certainly not in the first paragraph. As a Scot maybe thats why I feel I had to back you up, If you have discussions on the same subject give me a shout! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it would ever go quite like that again, but thanks. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

British Isles.

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

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

3RR discussion of British Isles

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

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

You have trolled me on Wales while using a sock - and have been caught red handed doing so. It simply is impossible for me to AGF. My suggestion to you is to be careful yourself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not troll you while using a sock. Honestly calm down. I never came across you until the Wales principality thing. That went to mediation. I don't know where you are getting this trolling thing. Frankly you're letting yourself down in your own proposal by making all these outlandish and crazy accusations instead of thinking about improving articles.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 22:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As User:Melvo you edited a paragraph on the Welsh Assembly you pointlessly faught with me on (to demote my country - no other reason). You deleted the 72 hour block details from your Talk page which would have saved me a lot of my valuable time arguing with you if I saw them (as I should have). Looking at your history I am 100% certain you are yourself a sock of another account (as you started life confidently claiming Scotland was not a country). I would like to change that paragraph in Wales but I know from experience that you will fight it - so I have left it for the time being. You worked closely with the sock of user:Gozitancrabz to troll over Welsh 'country' status - though you changed your tune after user:Gozitancrabz was found out to be an illegal account of a banned user. You now claim to support Scottish and Welsh independence! When I frustratedly asked you once if you had a problem with Wales you typically replied "I have absolutely nothing against the UK."! In short I am unsettled with you around. After the time I wasted in the Wales fiasco there is no way I am AGF'ing with a clear sockpuppet - no way. If I was 99% certain I would - but not 100% certain - it's asking too much. It's just a matter of time before you are discovered. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I've never had so many IP's interested in me! --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm straight! LOL 78.19.213.117 (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)