User talk:Matthew

Matthew is currently wikibonked and is operating at a lower edit level than usual. Hitting the wall is a temporary condition, and the user should return to normal edit levels in time.

Please leave your message below. Be aware that discussions are archived periodically (presently: 0 days) when believed to be over so if you can not find something you wish to revive please check the archives.

My Archive.

MSN Messenger: matthew at derwafflehaus dot net

AIM Messenger: FentonMatthew

My RfA

Word of thanks for MatthewFenton
Good morning (GMT time); I'd like to thank you for supporting, opposing, taking a neutral stance to, closing, suggesting I close or otherwise contributing to my recent RfA; unfortunately, I felt that although there were more support than oppose votes, the weight of the latter was too great for me to accept the promotion with so many not trusting me with the janitor's trolley -

I therefore decided to end my nomination prematurely. The feedback I received was invaluable, and I am striving to start afresh with all of the advice my fellow Wikipedians offered. In order to meet the aim of adapting to your advice, I've drew up a list of aims (located here) which I intend to follow from this point onwards.

If you have any further advice or comments for me, don't hesitate to post me a message

at my talk page where it will be graciously and humbly accepted. Once again, thank you and I do hope to bump into you around the encyclopedia!

Regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]}

Behavioural Aims:

Participation Aims:

Don't hesitate to add to these - just drop me a message so I know!

Hollyoaks: in the City (again)

Matthew, I'm not sure why you're treating this quite so pedantically. Whether or not it should be in the present tense - and "it has always been" is not a valid justification, or no articles would ever get changed - I'm totally perplexed why you're disputing the title song. 1) The information is materially correct; 2) a source has been provided, which, whether particularly good or not, is in fact correct; 3) you have suggested no other alternative or provided any information to assert anything to the contrary. So I can see no problem here. DWaterson 17:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "and/or"

Don't feel like I'm singling you out: I remove this construct wherever I see it. It's never needed and only muddles up what otherwise is perfectly clear meaning. The word "or" implicitly includes the condition of "and", and people understand this without the need for additional cues. So all of the cases you pointed out are covered by this simple and elegant word. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Mars

"Please note that we do not censor spoilers from Wikipedia because a user takes a dislike to them."

The season summaries can be read without any major spoilers. The two words I removed were unnecessary, and adding a spoiler warning to (virtually) the entire article is lazy. In the future, please keep your cliquish comments to yourself. Mratzloff 22:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page or indef-block Jimbo - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Veronica Mars trivia

Well, I agree that the fact that they used the right LC call number may not be the most relevant trivia there is about Veronica Mars (although the terms relevance and trivia seem a bit contradictory). I just thought it was interesting that the writers made the effort to look up the number (and to then choose another edition). And, of course, last week's episode entry includes nailbiters such as this: "The video game that Logan and Heather play is Mario Kart: Double Dash." But if someone else, namely you, thinks, the number thing is not as interesting as I assumed, I accept that. Greetings, Blur4760 14:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, from the top of my head, I can remember that in the episode "One Angry Veronica", Veronica makes a comment how she was surprised Keith could fit a pony in her bedroom for Christmas, and there is one episode, where she doesn't want Keith to know what she's doing on her computer, so she shows him just a screensaver of unicorns, implying that that was what she was embarassed to show (I can look up the episode when I get the time), further saying that girls are crazy about unicorns. So I also noted the number of pony and unicorn-references in the show. Yet their relevance is very disputable as well. Blur4760 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I thought you just deleted this sentence: "This is at least the sixth time writers have referenced a ponies or unicorns on the show." But you deleted the entire paragraph. That is consistent (and understandable). Blur4760 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Spy

I noticed you removed the section about critisms of Digital Spy by forum members. I have a couple of point to make about this

Wikipedia only recomends that forums are not used to verify content. Wikipedia also recomends that people are bold (WP:BOLD) when editing content. So, when discussing a forum, it is natural that forum content is used as verification as that is the subject under discussion.
The links that were included in that section did work when they were added. As you have noticed, they no longer exist. Digital Spy totally removed the threads from thier server after the links were added to Wikipedia. Does this not prove the accusations made against DS mods.

Rather than removing this content - would it not have been better for you to enter into the discussion on the talk page about how to cite these claims? Munta 14:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your reply to me you appear to have missed the first wiki code of conduct Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

"Assuming good faith does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but that neither action nor criticism should be attributed to malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith."

There was no malicious intent there yet you have assumed that there was! - my other contributions will atest to that fact that I do not make malicious contributions. Munta 16:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, You have also removed a section that is is currently being discussed in the Talk page. Secondly, you accuse me of making a malicious edit Thirdly you ignore my point when I pointed out that accusing people of malicious edits is against Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Munta 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for you not assuming good faith - "Personally it seemed libellous to be with some malicious intent" - your quote seems like prety good evidence to me. Munta 16:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Removed??? But Why????

I JUST followed the rules on the adminship page. But you kept reverting the page thinking I have to practice more. WHY???
----Invader Soap^{Evil Jokes}_{Gir's Dog}February 13^th, 2007 (UTC)