User talk:Matt Lewis/Archive 8

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 advice) --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:03, 30 January 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)

Josef Melan

Since you are member of WikiProject Biography, can you please assess the article for this WikiProject? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can label it Start. Do you want a comment too? --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS

Hi Matt. Please do not WP:CANVAS for !votes as you did at WP:FOOTY [1] and WP:Irish Football [2]. Any notification of debates should be made in a neutral manner, i.e. just saying what is being debated and where, and should not include any opinion on which way you think people should vote. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I only reported the Move in the two highly relevant Wikiprojects. Surely it is reporting not canvassing? Believe me - if I actually canvassed people the motion would be passed without doubt. It is not something I do though. I will certainly be appealing to people's emotions - what has happened regarding football is so atrocious you couldn't make it up. It makes Wikipedia look appalling.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is the very definition of canvassing. And if anything is appaling here, it is your comparison of a page move to Nazism. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

But why would I go to that extreme? The way Wikipedia gets controlled by the minority with such serious effect, combined with the undeniable power of Wikipedia in the world, makes it clearly analogous in my opinion. You may personally find it an ugly comparison, but it's still analagous. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And don't exaggerate the "canvassing" - I reported the WP:RM to the Irish football and Football wikiprojects (which I'm entitled to do). You should have told me here to 'tone down' my two short reports - not deleted lines from my text. All I wrote was: "As all other options have been tried and have failed, this should be the one that works. Brief and solid reasons are listed why it makes most sense. A broad participation would be most helpful." You should have asked me to change it (which I now have), not remove the lines like you did.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exaggerating the canvassing. What you did was a classic example of what not to do. If you want to let people know there's a debate happening, that's all you should do. Don't mention any arguments or your opinion on whether its for the best or not. There was no need to change the sentence I removed; it was wholly unnecessary, and there was no point in replacing it. As for you defending your comparison with Nazism, you've just lost any sense of credibility and I just can't respect anything you might have to say on the subject. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have always been strongly against canvasing and have given someone a hard time for it myself. Your complaint about me "canvassing" is simply pedantic though, and I find your comment on my use of Nazism as a comparator sanctimonious, and actually a little childish. I have really lost all credibility and respect? Nobody owns Nazism as a 'subject' and I personally dislike this kind of topic-censorship, esp for such a packed, important and 'value'-filled matter (both football and Nazism are no small subjects!). I go where my mind takes me, and am too precise to cause offence - I have made no ambiguous 'generalisations', merely structural comparisons. Wikipedia is being massively exploited here - one 'stepping stone' at a time. Is it just a coincidence that you also happen to disagree with my Move proposal, I wonder.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I disagree with your move proposal has nothing to do with my opinion on your behaviour. How on earth do you think Wikipedia is being exploited? It's just a WP:RM! пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It was passed with an "over 60% consensus"! What kind of consensus is that? Some involved were not even football fans. (policially it is seen by some in Ireland as a 'British' sport, with Gaelic football the true Irish one - the few who have prejudices bring them out). There is a handful of political Irish editors who go to great extremes to undermine Britishness on Wikipedia - they turn up here. There is only a small partisan turnout - which is why I think your accusations of canvasing is unfair re attendence encouragement, esp given what I would like to do, but am not doing - ie go to Talk in Football in England! That would simply win it for me - there is no way they would tolerate the alien word "Association" in the "home of football"! If I was at that last vote it could have been only 50% for "Association"! If we had a vote in the 'real word' it would not have been even 1% for Association. I'd never even heard of the term until I noticed someone (a good editor) resigned over it! God knows what he was put through.

All good Wikipedians respect the canvasing rules (including that guy I'm sure) - so you shouldn't be too particular about them. The fiasco also shows how people are willing to Wikilawyer (ie bend the rules) over 'conformity' - neither solution offers perfect conformity, but the Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland proposal is the more conforming, with the necessary qualifier in (brackets) per English grammar. the Irish press disambiguate between their two footballs using "soccer". Most other countries don't need to use the word. So we use brackets for the ROI to keep the conformilty of the "Football in" format. "Association" will always be at odds with Football in Scotland etc - they have not, nor will ever accept it. So where is the conformity with the ROI? Other countries don't have the cultural bullies that have provided just enough weight in the Republic of Ireland Football Talk to push it through. The bullies needed the help of the "Association is 'official'" sticklers, which are a real minority in the world.

There is a real deep resentment on Wkipedia over what happened to Football (soccer) - the word "official" overrided all common sense. It was a pantomime. This is footy for Christ's sake! Too-many non-football 'anal retentives' were involved. I won't go on or I'll get back on the WW2 comparisons you don't like!--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Association football

I wouldn't get too upset about it in all honesty. This is after all just wikipedia, it isn't going to affect the real world. And we shouldn't get too bothered about what happens on wikipedia (I know because I do it at times). I'm sorry though but I think that making comparisons with Nazism is a step too far and wholly inappropriate. No-one is going to die nor be tortured, nor be thrown into a concentration camp nor be part of any "solution" because if this. Like it or not though (and I don't particularly like the term), association football is the official name for the sport. As I said I sympathise with your point of view but in this instance my vote will remain the same, Mr Shakespeare or not! The White Devil, by John Webster now there is a play and a half! ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If I felt this was "just Wikipedia" I wouldn't be here in all honesty. I'd be reading more books. This place gets the "number 1" on search engines for most subjects - its power is extraordinary: for me, Wikipedia is a threat as much as a liberator for society. I've spent a lot of my time on here fighting political bias and advertising. If people didn't take real pains to continually work at Wikipedia's faults it would quickly be a shithole frankly - sorry, but that's the way I feel about it. Sometimes it is cringingly embarrassing - like with football. You don't have to remind me what the Nazis got up to - the reasoning is clearly "if this what else?" - ie WP is clearly corruptible. It is the potential for control (and to be controlled) that I am alluding to. Also the conformity and surreality analogies are strong ones. A great many people in the 'real world' just pretend Wikipedia isn't there - I can't do that. I also can't ignore the weight of WW2 when I need a good example! (I often use Shakespeare in a similar vein - extremes are useful examples, due to the inarguably 'purity' of so much about them). --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So with The White Devil are you referring to corruption, ambiguity, hysteria maybe? Is Football (soccer) a "black devil"? I've not read it - what do you mean? --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way - as you opposing the change to "Football (soccer)" on the Republic of Ireland article as "Association Football" is the "offical name" - will you be changing England too? And Wales? And France? And Germany? etc. Soccer suits the ROI as it is actively used there - I just don't see the problem. Will you be now changing England?--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Desrie me still this? To answer your questions, no I won't be "changing England" as you put it; not because I don't want it to happen but because I don't, unlike your good self, have a strong opinion about it one way or the other. However, if it were changed to Association football then I would be perfectly happy too. Association, football and soccer are mere words. Just my opinion but there are far more important things to worry about than mere words and mere words on wikipedia. As for the White Devil - you read way, way too much into my comment about it. It is a superb play, no hidden meaning in my mentioning it, no reference to anything other than I actually think it is a superb play, one I saw about 10 or so years ago in Stratford at the Swan theatre. I don't "mean" anything by it other than recommending it to you, it is superb. As for the football issue I really wish I hadn't voted. And despite what you say, association, football and soccer have not led to mass exterminations so no I really do believe your analogy is with respect, in poor taste. I would be grateful though if you would just leave me out of this now. I wish you good luck with it though. It has certainly created debate and maybe you will win support for the change in the end.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - I thought you meant something with White Devil, and if I had it around I'd have started reading it. I had a quick look on Wikipedia and it does look interesting - I'll give it a go if it pops up in a secondhand bookshop. I am a bit harum scarum with strong examples I suppose - but I do respect the taste argument, certainly. I have few 'taboos' (so to speak) and maybe should have pushed back the urge - it is a big issue to me though, and my context was not the atrocities but the structure. If Sound of Music wasn't in the background I probably would have found a way of saying it all without the example! I can see it's not particularly helped me as such - but I always felt this would be a tough battle with the main football article being "Association", and conformity being such a strong force on Wikipedia - especially in votes, where it's a kind of 'tick box' for passers by.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the above. Aye The White Devil is one of those plays that rarely seems to be staged and I was fortunate to see it live and loved it. I do sympathise with your position and hope that it gets resolved in the end.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm giving it a big go, but I'm not going to flog a dead horse if I'm clearly going to lose it. There's too much other stuff I plan to do. I'm hoping support will come along - I know it's out there - but you never quite know with Wikipedia what is going to happen! Sometimes you think, there are x million members - so why is this talk empty? I've walked into some clearly undeveloped articles (at the time) the stature of Wales and Terry Pratchett and found them quite stagnant - literally with nothing going on. I've never worked it out, though sometimes 'article-hangers' can be a bit unwelcoming I suppose. Much of Wikipedia is a mystery to me: it's fascinating in a way, the way people behave on it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankie says...

Matt, while our paths rarely cross activly, I have seen alot of the work you have done on the home nation articles (and the various connected articles) and so I know your recent outburst over the Association Football vs Football (Soccer) move on the RoI page is out of character, but take it from someone who has some respect for you, that this is one you need to let go. The, if you will forgive me using the term, ranting and raving just turns those of us who would otherwise support you away. It also just helps others make glib ad hominem remarks and well, as I am sure you know, they /do/ work despite their logical issues. Perhaps you should get out of the trenches for a while, edit some articles not directly related to the home nations in the current period? If you have an interest in history, there are some great British history articles that could do with some work. I am aware I am a somewhat unknown editor, but I hope you will consider taking some part of the advice. Narson (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you writing that, but it partly went the way it did because the way the voting and dialogue panned out (and I've also been mainly on my own) - reading through it it looks a lot worse than it actually feels for me - ie I'm not that stressed at all!! I was provoked quite a lot towards the end - which was the risk I took being so 'full on'. I still am being provoked a little - I can see I'm going to have to relinquish the last word, and to someone who probably isn't even a football fan! So I won't fight to the very end. I made an early decision to fight it rather than let it peter out - it was a hard one to actually win from the outset with the lack of page-watchers, and the Association Football article intact. It was a loss, but I'm glad I did it - I felt I couldn't just leave the pushed-through consensus I initially saw. A 'good weekend' would have been nice (and might have been interesting), but with Wikipedia you just never know. I hoped for a surge - and if it happened who knows? I'm sure I wouldn't be writing this, as you can't beat votes: alas it wasn't to be, and it's done now anyway. But thanks for your concern.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Football

Hi, Matt. Following the whole Football in the Republic of Ireland thing I came to your user page curious about which club or country you support. Unusually for an avowed football fan you haven't specified anywhere! I'm guessing Wales but club, I can't guess. Cardiff? Swansea? An English club? Myself, I follow Manchester United. Clichéd, I know, but they've always had a huge following in Ireland. I'm too young to remember Munich but I well remember watching the 1968 European Cup final in snowy black and white on Irish television (all we had at the time). I remember George Best, relegation, promotion, defeat by Second division Southampton in the Cup final, spoiling Liverpool's treble run, the ten-minute final of 1979 (but with six Irish on the Arsenal team, including three Dubs, I could surely be forgiven for enjoying that one), Kevin Moran sent off (a former Dublin GAA star), buying Eric Cantona from Leeds, winning the inaugural Premier League, Beckham's goal from his own half, Giggs's goal against Arsenal in the 1999 Cup semi-final, Schmeichel's cartwheel in the Champions League Final...I'm getting carried away here! Anyway, with England and Ireland missing, who are you going to be shouting for in Euro 2008? I reckon I'll be shouting for Portugal—yes, I know van der Sar plays for Holland and Evra plays for France but Cristiano is the man, and they have Nani as well! Anyway, I'm sorry that I didn't show my true colours in the discussion on the RM, but I feel strongly that an editor should be able to express an opinion without declaring his POV so that's what I did. I also follow Irish football, being a Shamrock Rovers follower, but from a distance—I did go to matches until the ******* owners sold the grounds, but my heart isn't in it now. I also follow Dublin in both Gaelic football and hurling, and my dearest wish is for the hurlers to taste some success at last, because it would be so good for the game if they did! I believe that true sports fans should stick together, and not fight, so even if you turn out to be a City or a Chelsea man, let's not be forever enemies. Peace, man. Scolaire (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I’m sorry Scolaire, I just found your behaviour a bit too ignorant. Whatever you thought of my approach, you could have dealt with my arguments (even in tandem to your ultimately-provoking reprimands): but you never once did. Despite your gloating comments on the 'loss' in Talk, in my own opinion it was you who was actually made the 'fool' of - by some of your fellow Irishmen, who dropped by simply to demote their British neighbours. It will be those names you’ve never actually seen on the football’s main-page edit history. You seem to appear to be more friendly (rather disconcertingly), but I’m not feeling particularly neighbourly to you I’m afraid: especially after just noticing your "19:3" toll-up was a rather clumsy miscount - comments aside, it was retired-early on 15:4! As for my local team, I see them once in a while but have never felt the urge to broadcast it here (even after the cup final), and there are editors who know far more about the squad etc than I. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff, then. I was right the first time :-) Don't worry, I'm not offended that you haven't warmed to me. I did gloat at the end but, to be fair, I had spent a deal of time and energy trying to get you to calm down - for your own sake, whether you believe it or not. And it's also (mostly, but not altogether) true that I never dealt with your arguments. That's because it was clear to me from the outset that it was impossible to get through to you on that level, you were just so much in your own little world that you couldn't imagine another POV might exist. Unlike the posters below, I think you're wise to retire. You need to get out of this virtual world and live real life for a while. I believe you'll come out of retirement in your own good time, stronger than ever, with a clear head and a sense of purpose. So long, Matt, it's been real. Scolaire (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You have no idea what I get up to in "my own little world" or in "real life" bucko! I'll be earning more money now I'm out of this place - that's the main thing for me right now. I'll mostly have Adobe on my laptop instead of Firefox, though that's far more demanding 'background work' that this. I can't quite see myself coming back when I look at what I hopefully have ahead in life - I've been trying to tighten-up my WP use anyway: and I've spent too much time here near unsavory people. I've also been stamped with a reputation - though very unjustified: It's not in my world to be seen as an irrational trouble causer, but a trigger-happy admin has branded me just that. Now I've heard some more of you, and I've got a better idea of your probable tracks, btw, I can't say I'd be itching to cross you again! I'm just one man. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that last bit. Does "cross" mean cross swords (fight) or cross my path (meet)? And what are my "probable tracks"? Don't bother to answer if you'd rather just forget about me. Scolaire (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Ramensky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scotland review

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

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

Dispute resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Y'know, it's not nice to make empty threats. --Raijinili (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC).

Archiving is tough

It's gotta be my computer (that's the problem). 'Cause when I followed the steps on the old computer? the 'paste' wasn't faded, when I got to step #5 (transfer to my newly created Archive page). GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you running Windows? Maybe you've switched the 'clipboard' off somehow? I seem to remember this happening to me once in some capacity - can't remeber what I did. Have you tried switching off the PC etc (ie clear the cache)? The other thing is software like AdAware - it could be malware or a virus I suppose. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rrius has given me an Archive Bot. If ya can't fix it? give it to a Bot. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind them on user talks, but on article talks archiving bots get on my nerves. Esp when someone has used a new section heading in the middle of a proposal or poll, and the whole thing ends up split over two pages when archived.. ahhh bad memories again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Archive Bots on article talk-pages. The Sarah Palin talkpage, is in dire need of archiving (due to rapid growth) - but editors there, are refusing to archive until discussion have concluded. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That can be a bummer - when I was on a much older PC the length of some archives drove me crackers. Sounds like they need a taskforce, so they can create subpages. taskforces are so easy to make people should use them much more. Sadly someone will probably make a "Sarah Palin X dispute" fork article instead, like what happened with Obama's 'madrassa' "controversy" early on. Getting that deleted was a nightmare - but it was done eventually. One of the people who faught to keep it even got in a right wing US news website. He was a real nob - he justed wanted to propagate the story as much as he could. I learnt loads of policy dealing with him. If there is a general issue it is over, perhaps you could suggest a taskforce? It's essentially just a glorified talk page for a difficult issue.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you imagine if we had had Wikipedia during the 1988 US prez election? The Dan Quayle article would've been locked for months. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought you just made a decent comment at BI talk, by the way. Maybe it was a comment rather than a section (or had the wrong section title perhaps) - but there was little to warrant deleting it, I thought. There wasn't actually a 'Discussion' section provided with the two "quick polls". I'm sure we can live without one though - I've said all my bits so many times now I'm running out of ways to say them and stay relatively sane.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I sure wish there were citations out there, that claimed British people objected to Irish Sea. Anything, to help create balance. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)