User talk:MattShepherd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, MattShepherd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  karmafist 22:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Drishtipat Controversy[edit]

Can a third party moderator please resolve dispute on the Drishtipat page regarding our intention to include an news article by the Bangladeshi Law Minister regarding the neutrality of this organisation (govt accuses it obliquely of being Pro-Awami League). In addition, an open letter by the organisations Exec-Director stating that he is Pro_awami League. Moderator Ragib (who we have had a run in with before) disagrees with editing.

Please read history and discussion before coming to a decision. The allegations are fully referenced and one reference is from the organisation themselves, admitting that the law minister was criticising them. Ragib disagrees with this interpretation.

Hi Matt, in case you do look into this, please be careful about the so called "citations". Many are from web forums, and at one case was planted by the same person commenting above. This user has been banned for one month for his continuous trolling (See Habz (talk · contribs)), and is now evading the ban via switching IPs. You can consult User:Rama's arrow regarding the backstory behind this. Thanks. --Ragib 02:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was not banned and I am free to edit. Rama and we had words and were reinstated immediately. Perhaps Matt can also ask why certain 'neutral' moderators (Ragib) are praised on the Drishtipat website and contribute there? Neutrality I think not! In addition, Ragib also welcoms members of Drishtipat like Tahmima Anam who log on here but not other Bengali and Sylheti members and has continually taken a Pro-Drishtipat line.

Why is it that the Bangladeshi Law Minister Ahmed's criticisms of party political bias by Drishtipat in it's political campaigning (to which Drishtipat felt compelled to respond for petes sake!) is not acceptable to member Ragib?

Yes, we dislike Drishtipat, but as we stated in our conversation with Rama, if allegations of bias are referenced, why not include them? It gives readers a fuller picture of the topic.

In addition, the Tahmima Anam page, why are her father and grandfather being mentioned in order to inflate her bacground if we are not able to add the fact (with citations) that her grandfather is an Awami League founder member (has a bearing as the Awami League and BNP have different interpretations about Anam's novels topic ie. the Liberation War) and her fathers newspaper took a Pro-Awami League stance during the recent political turbulence in Bangladesh (Daily Star opposed Iajuddin as President, same as Awami League during recent violence). Ask any Bengali you know, it is the central ideological point of difference in Bangladesh!

It seems that there is a political agenda being played out on these pages, often with the aid of moderators.

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy[edit]

Your comment " I feel cheapened, however, by being forced to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with a whole pile of assholes who support the keep for confrontational or race-baiting reasons." sums up why i'm seriously depressed by a large number of people who are voting to keep to "sock one to the Muslims". Depressing but well done for actually saying so at a time when that page is losing the plot.Logan1138 20:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Am I a leading proponent of Intelligent Design?[edit]

Obviously not, but given recent conversation on the ID page, I'm starting to feel like it. If anyone pops by my talk page to continue the conversation, feel free to do so. I'm enjoying it, but I think we'd hit stalemate on the article itself. --MattShepherd 18:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:9-11: The Road to Tyranny[edit]

As someone who had a rather neutral opinion on the matter and said he'd go see the film, would you mind weighing in on the matter of notability of anonymous ratingsTalk:9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny#4.2F5?

--Mmx1 01:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Saving this for future use[edit]

XX, you obviously feel very strongly about this, and I appreciate your enthusiasm, but Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. Maybe a more dynamic encyclopedia than most, but an encyclopedia. To create a parallel, imagine if I took great moral umbrage at, I don't know, sexism in The Flintstones. I call Encyclopedia Britannica and demand that they insert a paragraph in their Flintstones article (!) about sexism. They refuse, on the reasonable grounds that there is no common notion, or scholarly evidence, for the notion that the Flintstones was particularly sexist outside of the norms for its circumstances and time. So I self-publish a large tract in which I fume at length over the sexist attitudes of Fred Flinstone, print this out on my printer at home, and turn up at the Britannica offices waving my tract, demanding that they add a paragraph to the Flintstones article because here is published! evidence! that! the Flinstones! is sexist! They would throw me out on my ear. And they would be right to do so.
Writing your own paper on YYYY does NOT equate to there being responsible, coherent, commonly accepted discourse on the negative aspects of YYYY. If such an article were to be published by a reputable cultural studies journal, that might speak to the point quite well. But I suspect that it's going to turn up as a blog post somewhere, by somebody with no credentials worth noting, and you'll have spent a lot of time trying to create (a harsher person might say "falsify") criticism of YYYY to justify inserting your personal screed into an encyclopedia article. If you can't FIND any criticism of YYYY other than your own, then it is logical to conclude that NONE EXISTS. If none exists, it is not NOTEABLE criticism. If it is not NOTEABLE, it should not be INCLUDED.
Wikipedia holds itself to these standards because it is trying to be an encyclopedia. As such, it should be a repository of reputable information from trustworthy sources. You can't "write an article" on how much you hate YYYY and then use it to justify inserting your own, personal, unsupported, non-noteable opinion of them in this article for the same reasons that I can't create my own "George W. Bush is a Poopy Head" article and insert "George W. Bush Is A Poopy Head" into his entry. Nor can I go on tangental rants in the Flinstones entry about sexism if there is NO NOTEABLE, REPUTABLE SOURCE to back that opinion.
If anyone with a strongly-held opinion is permitted to alter any Wikipedia entry ad nauseum to reflect their own, personal, indvidual and unique, uncommon beliefs, then Wikipedia will become an endless series of rants about various subjects, with no accountability and no intellectual authority whatsoever. --MattShepherd 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Not the first time I've run into this type of thing coming from an RfC - wish there was a wiki policy/guide/something to deal with it....well done keeping your cool btw.Bridesmill 18:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea[edit]

Hello there, glad to meet you. I've begun engaging in discussion at The Constant Gardener (film), after having seen a dispute notice at WP:RFC, and would appreciate your continuing input there if you have time to do so. — ripley/talk 17:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Talk[edit]

I'd also like to see your input, i fyou have time Matt, please go here and give us your opinion. Thanks! Bagginator 11:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Hey, I just wanted to help you out with respect to your getting DEFCON after hearing about your problem: the way Introversion is distributing the game is that the Demo and the Full-Version clients are the same, and to get the full version you just need to enter an authentication code into the Demo which is then authorized by the metaserver (the source of most of the authentication problems). If you still can't get the client from the introversion website, it is also available at, which is always up. Of course, this won't help you in getting the authentication code from Introversion, but that site is up for me now anyway. If you knew all this stuff already and I misunderstood you're problem, I apologize in advance. AlexeiSeptimus 16:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think?[edit]

The discussion was shut down but i'm still interested in your opinion, Matt.

Ive offered the following as meeting WP:V and WP:RS in regards to the sentence in dispute at the Intelligent Design article, "All leading proponents of Intelligent Design are affiliated with the Discovery Institute." The San Francisco Chronicle, August 28 2005 calls Norris Gravlox, "a leading proponent of the intelligent design theory" the Tribeca Film Festival calls Jack Cashill, "a leading proponent of intelligent design." The Orlando Weekly from September 1st 2005 calls Mat Staver, "leading proponent of teaching intelligent design in public schools" and on May 26, 2006, the Legal Times calls John Umana, "a leading proponent of intelligent design" establishing WP:V and WP:RS.Bagginator 05:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, dude, it's fallen into the "life's too short" category. --MattShepherd 13:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Jane Hamsher[edit]

Thanks for your feedback on this article! --Kynn 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Matt[edit]

Hi Matt, First fall I apologize from you for the comment that I made on Talk:Anton Balasingham. I know I was too emotional there, and I addressed you bit rude. I'm not trying to make my action reasonable, but these things are happening in controversial topics. Though you are having bit low experience in Wikipedia, I hope that in near future you will put your step towards the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal and help editors like us who were stuck on controversial topics to get rid of those. Good Luck!!! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 19:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Lahiru! I hesitate to commit to anything formal because my time for the 'pedia is wildly variable. But I appreciate being thought of. --MattShepherd 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Trade Sources Added[edit]

When you have time take a look at the further discussion at Talk:Free trade#NPOV Part 2 (RfC). I've added some sources regarding the research on economist's views of free trade. Cheers Joel Kincaid 18:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anton Balasingham[edit]

It jus shows that if one knows the wiki policies it is not necessary to be a subject matter expert in any situation to bring calm to the situation. Thanks for bringing clarity in the terrorist tag discussion. RaveenS 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I hereby give you the original barnstar for being objective in resolving tag issue on Anton Balasingham page

RaveenS 14:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Join us in the "Terminator" Article discussion page...please...[edit]

If you are still a member of Wikipedia, please join user:TomTheHand and myself in a discussion of which terms should apply to the Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 Infiltration Unit in its various forms.

To be as neutral as possible, I will relate the views of TomTheHand as well as my own, as accurately as posible:

Tom believes that the term "Android" should apply to all of the incarnations of the Model 101, from Endoskeleton all the way up to the gestalts of flesh-and-blood and the combat chassis played by Arnold in the movies. He furthermore believes that the term "cyborg" does not apply to any of the Terminator's forms.

Thanos777 -myself -thinks that the Terminator is worthy of multiple appelations depending on which configuration (read: Type/Series) the Model 101 is configured as.

That is to say, I believe that the "Base" Model 101, just the endoskeleton with no cosmetic enhancements, is best defined as either a Humanoid Robot, Anthropomorphic Robot, or simply a Robot.

When the Model 101 is outfitted as a Type/Series 600, the endoskeleton covered by rubber skin, I believe that the Terminator is then most correctly classified as an "android."

And finally, when the Model 101 is equipped as a Type/Series 800/850, the endoskeleton with the living flesh-and-blood covering, I believe that the most correct term for the creatre is "cyborg."

Again, I respectfully ask you to come back to the "Terminator" Article and lend your input; those of us who are there in the Article's discussion page are engaging in a lot of back-and-forth regarding the different terms and the disagreements as to when they should be used.

Hope to "see" you there soon!!!

Third party opinion please[edit]

In the following controversial article Kokkadichcholai massacre some editors due to their personal position [1] which is at an emotional level understandable are constantly trying to remove WP:RS sources specially regarding the 1987 incident. Can you look into it and give an opinion please. Thanks RaveenS 14:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

More discussions [2] here Thanks RaveenS 18:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Sorry about that! That situation had gotten rather out of hand. It... may have calmed down now. Adam Cuerden talk 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

English-speaking Quebecer[edit]

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to comment at Talk:English-speaking Quebecer. I have responded to your comments. I would appreciate it if you would take some time to examine the edits I was questioning [3] and provide further input. Joeldl 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

English-speaking Quebecer II[edit]

Just a few clarifications. It was in fact I that wrote most of this article and provided the extensive references. The methods and rationale for statistics cited here are summarized under the population section in the article and based on cited references. The controversy arose when othre editors began demanding citations for referenced items without reading the references. This was related to disagreements at other sites that degenerated into personal attacks. I took the time to read through the references carefully, and I think all editors should do so too before questioning neutrality. --Soulscanner 05:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There was disagreement about whether the cited references actually supported the statements, and the page numbers were not provided to allow verification of the source. This is not ordinarily a big problem, but in at least one case, once the page number was identified it did not support the statement. There are other cases where there is some doubt about whether the sources support the precise language in the article. So even if one finds the part of the reference claimed to support the assertion, and one decides it doesn't support the exact formulation in the article, one may still be left wondering if information elsewhere in the source actually does support the language. So we have to be careful about giving specific references. In any event, if challenged, editors including information have a responsibility to pinpoint the supporting language exactly. I shouldn't have to edit war with Soulscanner to get that, let alone to place cleanup tags.

Also, Soulscanner opposed clarification of the 900,000 population figure in the introduction. The mother tongue figure is about 600,000, and Soulscanner did not want so much as a hint in the introduction that the 900,000 figure did not pertain to mother tongue, saying that this was clarified in another (less prominent) section anyway. Please carefully examine the actual edits I made to the introduction that Soulscanner reverted before jumping to any conclusions. Joeldl 09:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To MattShepherd: I'll try and base my questions on style and good encyclopedic form. 1. Could you please provide an opinion as to whether this many page citations to the same source are necessary. The demographic study that provides much of this information is cited four or five times already in the article. Personally, I write in a style so I can put at most one citation at the end of each sentence. Too many citations clutter up the article. If you really find the relevant material hard to locate please leave the relevant "citation needed" tags and I'll provide the page reference. 2. Do you find the explanation and rationale for using the Official Linguistic Minority number lacking. The source I cite provides an explanation and rationale for this; the explanation is long and complicated; I think it should suffice to provide a credible link to a credible source, and provide the needed caveats in the demographic section. 3. Would you put a discussion of the rationale for the various methods of compiling demographic statistics in the intro? I think and introduction should be kept short and too the point and use methodologies from official government sources wherever possible when it comes to census data. Thank you.--Soulscanner 17:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Need your comment on Black_Eyed_Husband --Bziona86 (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)