User talk:Matt57

hey Matt

i have uploaded this picture 2 times .first i thought you have concentrated on the copy right law but you are telling me now that you can not believe .this picture is taken by apollo 10 you can chek it at http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021029.html

Abuse of Power

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

Cartoons

Rather than blame the cartoonist, we need to blame the Muslims who have killed because of the cartoon. They are the real criminals, not the cartoonist. We need to blame the Radical Despot Leaders who insite this violence. They are the true masterminds of human rights abuse. This is the Canadian Way. (Robin, Canada)

The goal of Radical Islam is to censor the press. It looks like our Human Rights Tribunals are helping them to achieve their aims.

By behaving like Bullies, and Spoiled Brats. By throwing tantrums at every perceived offense, (a riot here, a car bomb there) they are causing our own institutions turn against their own citizens, and are actually HELPING the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to suppress our freedom of speech.

Rather than blame the cartoonist, we need to blame the Muslims who have killed because of the cartoon. They are the real criminals, not the cartoonist. We need to blame the Radical Despot Leaders who insite this violence. They are the true masterminds of human rights abuse.

Rather than cower away, we need to STAND UP TO THESE BULLIES and say: "Look. We are not afraid of you. We are not babies like you, crying over cartoons. We will say anything we wish, and you will never cause us to shut our mouths."

This is the Canadian way.

Sincerely, Robin, Canada

Thanks!

StaticGull  Talk  has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Orphaned non-free image File:FFI-logo.png

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Online Quran Project

I am not quite sure why you have added '\\Notability|1=web\\' to the Online Quran Project - which sources and template are you referring to? Best regard --Imdkzmaa (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but did not help - please enlighten me. Best regards, --Imdkzmaa (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take a look at it in the upcoming week and add the necessary resources, template and sources needed. There is a couple of book-references also, I will try to incorporate these too. Best regards, --Imdkzmaa (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The updates have been added - please do check to see if its all right, thanks. I still need some more work on the article, but this must sufficient right now.. Best regards, --Imdkzmaa (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Matt57. You have new messages at GaussianCopula's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vulgarity

I guess we are some of the few editors who actually believe in keeping discussion civil and free from unnecessary vulgarity. I applaud you for it! Basket of Puppies 21:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, yes we are few and we know what we are up against. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Matt57. You have new messages at Basket of Puppies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

confused by your refusal to respond

You ask that users not post replies to your comment on Jimbo's page and that they post here instead. When they do as you ask you remove their comments without replying. So is it that you refuse to discuss anything with any user you don't happen to agree with? I think you will find that attitude will be an impediment to your having a productive wiki-career. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

They can (now) say what they want, I'm not removing anything. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearing the air

Hi!

I wanted to stop by to clear the air after the earlier thread at ANI.

Editors - people in general, even, and me in particular - often focus on disagreements rather than agreements, even when the agreements vastly outweigh the disagreements. It occurred to me in hindsight that your main point - that swearing is undesirable and unhelpful - is a point well made, and not one I would disagree with. Again, in hindsight, focussing on our differences rather than our common beliefs was unhelpful, and I'd like to apologise.

Promoting civil conduct on Wikipedia should be applauded, and I don't feel my arguments earlier were appropriate in this regard. I actually feel my comments were slightly pointy, and for that, too, I'd like to apologise.

All the best, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats ok, thank you for that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Good manners insist I notify you of this thread here [1] which is a comment on your provocative and unacceptable behaviour.  Giano  12:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User pages

One prohibited user of user pages are "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner."

Please detail exactly what dispute you are in with Giano if you restore diffs by him to your user page, and what exactly avenue of dispute resolution you will be undertaking, and when it will be completed by. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• It would be better Matt57 if you removed the whole box as unless you are in despute resolution with user Bali then the links and comments of his are also not a good thing to keep on your user page. Best thing here is simply to remove the box and move on, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 1 week, for repeated and egregious personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So I've been blocked for this which was to make a point that using rude, aggressive language is not right but Bali ultimate doesnt get blocked for "what the fuck are you on about"?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Matt57 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Whoa, what? This block has been made in mistake. The blocking admin did not see the background of this issue. My point of that post was to show that using 4 letter words in an offensive manner is a blockable offense, one for which Bali ultimate was left unpunished for what he said here. Being rude and offensive is not behavior that should be allowed at Wikipedia. Now that I've proved that one can be blocked for being rude and offensive, could I get unblocked and could the original offending user Bali ultimate be blocked? That is what should have happened in the first place.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Specifically point two. Do not excuse what you did with what others did. Two wrongs do not make a right. Additionally, I don't understand your argument that having made your point, you should be unblocked. If anything, our guidelines condemn disruptive editing to make a point. Finally, the unblock process is not the correct place to request action against other editors. As this is already listed at ANI and linked, I will assume that your points here and there will be viewed, however they do not address the reasons for this block, thus I am declining this unblock request. Regards, Taelus (Talk) 14:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No matter how this ends, this is going to have some interesting results, that's all I will say for now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not an admin review, just advice. You really should read that guide to appealing blocks. "Don't block me, block him" is unlikely to be productive, and veiled threats even less so.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't your unblock request basically an admission that you've disrupted Wikipedia to make a point? –xeno^talk 14:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Cube, its not a threat. I just have to do some things differently now obviously because I wasnt expecting this block at all. I have to change the way I see Wikipedia or maybe I'll just leave, I dont know. I will also talk to others outside Wikipedia about the chronic user conduct problems here. I have to take some actions or decisions, is what I meant.

Xeno, if I have violated WP:POINT, is that a bigger offense than being rude and offensive? I dont understand how someone can be blocked for making a point, but not for saying things like "what are you fucking on about" and all the other kinds of comments I gathered here. Isnt something wrong here? What is wrong is, I'll just say it: Jimbo's tolerance for rude and aggressive behavior. That may change if I get a reply from him but the fact that comments like the ones I gathered above, are being allowed to be said here, without any consequences or enforcement of discipline and that, people are ok with it, is a serious problem here. My "violating" comment was to show that rude offensive comments are wrong and should be enforced and outlawed. Thats exactly what I have proved. Did I violate WP:POINT? Actually I explicitly mentioned in my post that I was indeed trying to "deliver a point" (to quote myself). The point was to show Bali that he did not like what I said because the way I said it. The problem is that nothing is being done about such behavior here. It is OK if I was blocked for my comment, if that was the only thing I said. The admin did the right thing. However what should have happened is that Bali should have been blocked (say 12 hours) in the first place and that did not happen. What is sad that we all couldnt even agree that rude and offensive behavior is punishable. Even admin George came and complained about Bali's rudeness to him in another situation (scroll down to 3rd sub heading) but nothing was done and the issue was closed. As far as the enforcement of being respectful to other editors is concerned, I think its a sad state of affairs here.

Taelus, the reason for the unblock is simple: I (obviously) did not mean what I said. I only said it to demonstrate that no one likes to be talked to in a rude, aggressive manner like Bali did ("what are you fucking on about"). Its strange that I've been blocked for making a "demo" post of rudeness while other editors go unpunished in real situations. In summary, my unblock reason is: "I was kidding and trying to show an example." Also as I mentioned to Xeno above, is making a POINT violation a more serious offense than being rude and aggressive? Ok I violated POINT. There ya go. Sorry about that. How's that? Yes I shouldnt have violated WP:POINT since thats the policy here. But when no one was being blocked for saying things like "what are you fucking on about" and other things, I thought being blocked for violating POINT was not going to happen. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly (as I often do), Jimbo made an attempt to make a change in editor behaviour that resulted in a huge cock-up (the "toxic personalities" gaffe) and his pledge not to use the block button on en.wiki anymore. –xeno^talk 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

After many (edit conflict)I was about to mention that very controversy. Matt, the difference between the diff you're citing in your defence and the diff I cited in the block (as well as the general pattern) is that "what are you fucking talking about" is not (in my book at least) a personal attack. It uncivil, and rude and if there's a pattern, it could be blockable, but your comment was specifically directed. Instead of reacting to perceived wrongs in the same fashion, you should take it to places like ANI. OK, so nothing was done this time, but maybe next time, if you have evidence of a pattern of behaviour, somebody might be able to take action. By responding in kind (or worse), you make yourself no better than the people you hold in such contempt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently sarcasm is only tolerated on the part of some and not others. My offhanded guess would be that the intent of the offending comment was to have "f**k*" in quotes. I recall being on a customer call once and being lashed into by a senior customer executive using the "F"-word prolifically regarding my company and myself. As it was, a magnetic tape (dating myself!) of data essential to our root cause analysis we had been awaiting for a week had only left the building just before the meeting at which the tirade occurred. When the exec paused to breath, having gathered some steam, I replied screaming just as loudly (in more than 10 years, only one of two occasions I ever raised my voice at this job), "If your F**ing problem was as F**ing important to F**ing solve as you F**ing say it is then why did the F**ing tape we've been waiting for for a F**ing week just leave the F**ing computer room?" After a rather pregnant pause of dead silence, this being in a meeting of about 30 people of our and the client's senior management, said exec turned to an individual seated next to them and asked: "(name withheld), is this true?" Needless to say, at that moment we had attained an understanding and had quite the positive relationship after that. Imagine if my management had chosen instead to censure me for making a "point" by using the "F"-word and confine me to my office desk for a week with no system access. Sometimes, perhaps, a point needs to be made and taken for what it is.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Zeno, funny the block was used on me though. :D. Its just dysfunctional, is all I can say and Jimbo is 100% to blame for not being strict enough. Being tolerant is one thing but allowed misbehaving users to take over the place and rule freely without consequences is wrong and even these users know that. In the end, someone has to make the right call and sometimes its tough and Jimbo has not done that and we can see the results by looking at the state of civility here.

Peters, thank you for your post. Indeed sometimes a point has to be made in order for people to understand.

Its funny that WP:POINT is so easy to enforce but the more important WP:CIVIL is not. -Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

HJM, if you're going for patterns, there's a big obvious pattern here (these two usernames are the same person: [2],[3]) and yet no one has done anything about it. Why? The point is, why is this rule of "if its rude and there's a pattern", only enforced on me and say, no on Giano II? Looking at Bali ultimate, you said its "uncivil, and rude" and not a personal attack. Fine. It is still against WP:CIVIL so why wasnt he blocked for that? Why was the civility rule not enforced there? But there's nothing you can do about it. Tonnes of people were opposing any kind of action against Bali and no one cared even when admin George complained about being attacked ("good little Wikipedian"). These people know how to break the rules so they wont get blocked, they know what to say and how to get away with it. That's why things like these go unpunished here because no one does anything about and I get blocked for making a WP:POINT violation. I had specifically said in that post that I was making a point and therefore you could have seen I did not literally mean that comment. Let me ask you: did you know that I specifically said in my post that I was making a point, or did you just skim over and think I was being mean and rude and literal and really meant that comment? From your reaction at ANI it looks like you made the decision to block in a hurry. Ofcourse I was not going to call his loved ones and ofcourse he wasnt going to give me their numbers. It was a POINT thing. I did it to show him its wrong to used 4 letter words in a rude and offensive way while talking to another editor. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the point that you're missing is that a person using a "naughty word" in a discussion may not be the best behavior, but it's not nearly as disruptive as someone then turning the pedia into a battleground to try to have the offenders punished.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And my point is: how do things like this never turn the pedia into a battle ground, and the little example I made to make that point does? I will stop posting now and have made my points now and will leave it to the admins to decide whatever they want to do. If I dont get unblocked its fine. Once again, a WP:POINT violation can get blocked but WP:CIVIL is of no importance. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I just read through a large number of pages related to the backstory on this issue, and I must say, this block is horribly unjustified. An admin would be well advised to take a close look at Bali Ultimate's talk page and examine his history of problems, including previous blocks and ANIs. Matt57 was clearly turning his behavior around on him, which was, yes, trying to make a WP:POINT, but any block, much less an entire week, is horribly out of proportion to the offense. As a disinterested observer who just happened to stumble upon this, I would suggest removing this block immediately. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 17:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess you missed this little gem [4]. - Josette (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, but I don't think it's anything serious either. He's saying if Bali is okay with swearing, he'll call up his family and swear at them. Clearly facetious, pointy language. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Offer to unblock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt57 -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My loved ones

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

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

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

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

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

The Black Stone

My comment is about the article about the black stone.

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

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

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

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

It is very very insulting to Muslims for somebody to draw an image of our prophet (pbuh) you must understand, and ultimately, the picture serves absolutely no purpose in that it adds any value to the description of the stone or the article. It is just an excuse to try and say 'look at me, i am using my right to free speech' well you are not, you are just insulting people for no purpose whatsoever.

Please leave it off the page...

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