User talk:Matt57

Archives: --1-- --2--

Organization of British ex-Muslims

The organization has 25 founding members and an unknown number of additional members. It is not significant enough to warrant a section on the Islam in the United Kingdom page. If you were to add a section for every group with so few members or impact on the general British Muslim population the article would be endless.

If such a section is added to the Islam in the United Kingdom article then equally sections on apostacy, scularism and athiesm added to the British Jews article and Church of England article. Please do not try to threaten me or taint the Wikipedia project with your Athiest extremist point of view.

Articles that are counterparts on the same subject such as Religion do matter. Wikipedia cannot be seen to be or actually be bias as it will destory the credibility of the whole project. While this organization has been heralded in the media its impact on the actual British Muslim community has been neglible as its numbers suggest. The Sufi Muslim Council also is notable but it does not have its own section and is only mentioned in the Political organisations and pressure groups section. Feel free to add the Organization of British ex-Muslims to the latter section.

I do not have the verifiable data or information on apostacy, scularism and athiesm in the Jewish and Christian communities of Britain and would not attempt to make the needed and factual changes without doing so.

request

I have been asked to look at Talk:Historical_persecution_by_Muslims#Muhammad.27s_treatment_of_non-muslims by User:Itaqallah but I am a bit reluctant to read through it all if you can find some way of sorting it out between you. Do you also think things are stuck going in circles? --BozMo talk 10:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Things are likely to be stuck in a circle. I've had frequent problems with Itaqllah. He's an aggresive editor. I've asked these people (Itaqallah, Tigeroo) simple yes/no questions about persecution and they keep avoiding the questions. If a man says "Kill anyone who leaves religion X", this is persecution by defination. Muhammad gave at least 2 such orders recorded in hadiths for apostates and Jews. I'm not seeing any resolution soon for this issue and this is just a small part that should be in that article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah may be aggressive, and has strong views but he listens and thinks too. Building bridges with people like that is part of what Wikipedia is for IMHO. Does making something a criminal offence punishable by death always amount to persecution? Or only if it is something which we don't regard as an offence any more? I am not trying to lead an argument anywhere just exploring the word since the "persecution by defination" isn't so clear to me. --BozMo talk 17:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Its persecution if the killing is based on a person's religious views. Persecution is bad stuff done to a person, on the basis of religion. Its pretty simple logic if you look at the defination of persecution. There is no "analysis" needed as Itaq is suggesting, in order to come to this conclusion. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Which dictionary are you using for the definition? --BozMo talk 20:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

All of them give the same meaning: [1], [2]. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is to refer to persecute the verb which means "1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, esp. because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently. 2.to annoy or trouble persistently". So does making something (religious belief for example) a criminal offence punishable by death always amount to persecution? I would guess not unless it is disproportionated efforced? Did King Darius persecute Daniel or did his courtiers? Comments like "at that time in England Roman Catholicism was illegal but practising Roman Catholics weren't persecuted" comes to mind. You could be right but I think you need to discuss it a little more before assuming anyone who disagrees is wrong by definition. --BozMo talk 05:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it like this. If I ordered people to kill anyone who left the religion XYZ, that is persecution, isnt it? There are other hadiths in which ex-muslims were actually killed. Even the order to kill by itself is harrassment at the least, becuase its a discrimination based on religion. If someone is targetted and harrassed on the basis of religion - and this is what Muhammad did by saying ex-muslims should be killed, thats persecution. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, ordering someone to be killed sounds like persecution/harrassment. Whereas declaring apostasy as a capital offence may not be so. Are traitors in England persecuted: no, high treason is a capital offence but no one has been charged for decades. What a hadith means or how to view it in this case you might want to discuss on the talk pages. Did he really stand up and say "go find and kill" or did he say "turning one's back on Allah merits death"? --BozMo talk 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You got it! It was specific clear unambigous orders to kill: "if anyone leaves Islam, kill him" and this: "if you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them". These are exact quotes. So you agree this is persecution? Now I'll expect Itaqallah to appear magically here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

why magically? i have been reviewing the whole discussion. Matt57 isn't able to give the context in which Muhammad said the quote regarding the Jews (it looks like he's inventing one) - Muhammad could easily have been referring to Jewish combatants. there is nothing in Islamic law stipulating that Jewish men be killed - at all - which would not be the case had Muhammad unequivocally said "Kill all Jewish men", which he simply did not. as for the killing of apostates, BozMo is right: it was regarded as treason. this passage from Bernard Lewis clarifies that: "The penalty for apostasy, in Islamic law, is death. Islam is conceived as a polity, not just as a religious community. It follows therefore that apostasy is treason. It is a withdrawal, a denial of allegiance as well as of religious belief and loyalty. Any sustained and principled opposition to the existing regime or order almost inevitably involves such a withdrawal."[3]. that is why you can't just kill apostates who don't live under Islamic law. ITAQALLAH 17:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What distinguishes persecution from prosecution is that the latter involves the enforcement of a criminal law of -general- application. Laws like 'any adult will be punished for stealing or killing' have this general application.

But a law of the nature 'you will be discriminated against for being a former adherent of (only) religion X' is not so and that is the situation faced by the murtads.

Also look at the internationally accepted definition of a refugee:

"a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race ... membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country."

High tribunals of record in many jurisdictions have dignified exmuslim apostates as a recognisable 'particular social group' that attracts this status and its protection with respect to certain notorious Muslim countries and societies. See, just for example, here and here (this was a comment by a sock, but its still relevant)

ItaqAllah, do you have any sources for saying that apostasy is treason and thats why they were killed? "If anyone eats an apple, kill them" , this qualifies as a simple apple-killing. It doesnt say they were killed becuase they had $50 in their pockets. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, i have provided a source above which says it was considered treason. now, perhaps you can reciprocate and provide some reliable sources alleging persecution. otherwise, you may stop defending unverified POV claims. ITAQALLAH 19:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said its persecution by defination. I'll wait for Bozmo to reply now, ok. You wont get another reply before Bozmo replies. Also, you keep avoiding the questions I asked you on the Talk page of that article (diff given above). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

who says i need to answer irrelevant questions? who says it's persecution by "defination"? i don't see any dictionary concluding persecution from Muhammad's words. your assertion is unverified, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. WP:V and WP:RS clearly say you need to provide a source relating specifically to the topic of the article. please provide it. ITAQALLAH 20:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not responding to you ITAQ, before you respond to my questions on the Article talk. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

the basis for the inclusion of material is determined by policy, not by non-sequitur questions. ITAQALLAH 21:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, keep avoiding my questions ItaqAllah. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am following the discussion still but both of you should (1) cool off a little and (2) try to understand the other's point of view a bit. Both of you are showing signs of irritation. It seems to me that the question of persecution is a little more complicated that the existance of a capital offence for religious practicise; but only just. I don't think the bit about refugees helps clarify. IMHO it turns on how the offence was declared and how it was enacted. If Matt57 can substantiate the "posse" feel of these commands then it was persecution: e.g. if Mhd exhorted people to pursue it. If Itag can substantiate the "procedural" feel then it wasn't. But I have no knowledge of the actual quotations or context. Was it given as a command as part of a long list? Was it given in response to a particular event? Matt57 says people were actually killed because of it: definitely? many? Soon after enactment? --BozMo talk 10:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Those were the exact quotes "If anyone leaves his religion, kill him" - it was given as an independent order like any other hadith. e.g.:

Bukhari, volume 9, #58

Narrated Abu Bruda, "Abu Musa said.....Behold there was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Muadh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Musa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and hen reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Musa requested Muadh to sit down but Muadh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and his messenger," and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers .....

There are many other examples. I didnt bring in any hadith where Muhammad ordered the killing and it actually took place, but his order to kill alone is persecution, i.e., harrassment in the name of religion. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

<reset>"I didnt bring in any hadith where Muhammad ordered the killing and it actually took place" -- why is that? as stated previously, only those under the rule of the Islamic govt are killed. for example, those who went to Abyssinia or were outside Muslim lands who apostasised were not killed. as such, it is only something that can be done by an Islamic govt, as per Islamic law. that is why it is considered treason: an act of rebellion against the ruling authority, see the Lewis quote above. requesting us to prove whether it was procedural or posse-like entails more original research, as well as presentist judgements. that we're having to divulge this far to ascertain a value judgement is evidence enough we need solid reliable sources making the specific claims. ITAQALLAH 02:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? A person doesnt have to be killed in order to certify persecution. Just the harrassment is enough too. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad ordered the execution of an apostate. did he order their harrassment? ITAQALLAH 03:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont use the word "execution" when you should use "murder". Muhammad ordered Muslims to murder anyone who left Islam. Thats accurate. As to your query: killing anyone because of religion, or ordering others to kill them is harrassment and thus, persecution. Actually there's persecution in the Quran too where Allah wants to burn people in Hellfire because they didnt beleive in Muhammad or Allah, but thats a separate issue. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

so you're saying he didn't specifically order their harassment, just their execution? ITAQALLAH 15:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You think I'd say that? Go back and read what I wrote above. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

i can't see you saying anywhere that Muhammad specifically ordered their harassment, so i'll take that as a negative. thanks. ITAQALLAH 23:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop putting words in my mouth. Ordering a person to be killed because they left a religion is harrassment and persecution. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

and as such we reach full circle. hence the need for outside opinions. ITAQALLAH 23:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Altering my user page

I'm surprised that you did this without consulting me. The correct action, of course, would have been to leave a message on my talk page. I'm reverting your edit for now while I decide whether I need to check out this user or not. Itsmejudith 14:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon, while we are on this subject, I would like to make note that the altering of one's user page without explicit consent, especially for the purpose of modifying user comments and such, if considered to be a form of vandalism. Further misconduct could lead to a block from editing. If it is your conviction that the user who awarded this barnstar is a sockpuppet, this is not the way to handle your claim. Take it to CheckUser info, provided you supply sufficient evidence. If you would like to talk in your own defence in regards to the WP:WQA complaint made against you, I suggest you click here. I am hoping this is the last violation of policy we see from you, and if so, please return to constructive editing. Thank you, and have a nice day.The Kensington Blonde _Talk 19:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You started editing a month ago and you're very familiar with Wikipedia. Hello KirbyTime, how's it going? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, many people become familiar with WP policies and procedures LONG before they sign up for an account. Do you have anything other than the age of Kensington's account on which to base your accusation that he is a sockpuppet of Kirbytime? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a checkuser which should explain that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, and I responded to the Checkuser request, basically saying that I don't think you've presented enough proof for the request to be valid. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just in case then? Can't hurt, and it might help. Regards. Hamster Sandwich 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've disengaged from the Checkuser discussion. I still don't think there's a strong enough correlation to show that K.Blonde is a sock, but as I said before, I don't have the full history here, and I'm apparently not qualified to weigh in on the discussion. (Note: I am not being snide here - I am truly admitting that I'm out of my league on this one.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

KT has been harassing Matt since before his ban, and has used socks to do so since. Arrow740 02:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Elonka

Elonka's RFA hasn't officially opened yet, so you might want to remove your comments until then. I made the same mistake last night. Jehochman ^Talk 14:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks, removed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(responding to talkpage comment) Matt, I'm sorry that you feel that I've ignored your responses... I've been trying to participate at Talk:Kaaba in a measured way, and it was not my intent to ignore anyone -- I do try to give time for other editors to weigh in. As regards the Depictions of Muhammad case, I understand that this went to mediation on other pages, and I applaud the efforts of those editors in that discussion. At the Kaaba article though, I've looked through all the archives, and I could find no specific discussion about that article, nor any poll at any time to double-check consensus. So, I'm actually in agreement with you, that I'd like to put the issue to rest, and it is my feeling that a simple poll to check consensus is the best way to do this. My own initial opinion is "Replace", as I still wish we could have found a compromise, but I'm fully willing to go along with the building consensus on this, which obviously appears to be a "Keep". I'd like to give a bit more time to ensure everyone has weighed in, and then if the trend continues, I'll probably change my "Replace" to "Keep", and we can also make a formal "This is what the consensus is" determination. Hope that helps explain, --Elonka 21:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. "Replace" means you have ackowledged the image is offensive to some users and something must be done about it and thats against Wikipedia policies (the link I gave to you). You just have to stick to doing the right thing, not the compromise and you'll be sure to always end up at the right place. If you keep compromising, things get progressively chaotic, but thanks for trying to get a consensus. I would still support a person to be an admin if they made it their mission to never compromise on policies. You're ignoring policies (censorship, not offensive, etc.) and going all along with compromise and consensus, without caring what the right thing to do is. To me thats scary if you were an admin with these attitudes. Policies are very important and thats what keeps this website in order. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, just to be clear, I do very much support the WP:CENSOR policy. And as regards that particular image, I absolutely agree that it's historical and worth including on Wikipedia. I mean, you've seen my edits on the article and talkpage at Black Stone, remember? I've fought very hard to keep the image there, and have not changed my mind on that issue.  :) I also think that the image is completely appropriate at Depictions of Muhammad, as well. It's just that specifically on the Kaaba page, I don't think it's quite as appropriate as at the other articles, which is why I'm a bit more open to compromise in that one case. I think it's important to be flexible, and to work with other editors to try and find a consensus that's agreeable to as many people as possible. :) My thinking on the Kaaba article, is that just because the image is acceptable on some Islam-related articles on Wikipedia, doesn't mean that we need to go out of our way to put it on every Islam-related article on Wikipedia.  :) But I also am willing to go along with the consensus on this, which, as I mentioned above, is pretty clearly "Keep". I hope that makes sense? If not, please let me know. I'm a big fan of communication! :) --Elonka 05:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, then why did you vote for a Replace in that Kaaba poll? Because you think its offensive to some people, right? And that it should be censored? Therefore you didnt care about the CENSOR policy. Your edits at Black Stone may be good but in this case you voted for a Replace, for what reason? That its offensive to some people, while you compromised on the quality of the article? Of course thats a big no no. Where would we get an image of Muhammad otherwise lifting the black stone like that? No where. The bottomline is that you voted for a Replace there, and the show hide option is also a way of compromise. The right way is not a compromise, its comes from sticking to the rules. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad

Material could go back in per BYT's approach, wasn't appropriate as it stood. Hope this clarifies. Itsmejudith 15:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read BYT's post. Itsmejudith 15:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On the talk page. Look for BrandonYusufToporov or BYT in the edit history. It's a very sensible and constructive suggestion IMHO. ALM is also correct, there is no consensus at the moment. The article talk page is the right place for this discussion. Itsmejudith 15:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is under active discussion under the last heading in the talk page. Right now. Unless I've got it all wrong, in which case there'll be plenty of people letting me know. Itsmejudith 15:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

All I can do is refer you to the discussion on the talk page and I suggest you join in that as I don't have any more that I can usefully add at this point. BYT's suggestion allows plenty of space for debate. Unless you feel that I have acted improperly in any way, I hope that you will now consider the discussion on this one edit closed. Itsmejudith 16:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I explained my edit in the summary, and now unless you want to take out a user RFC on me, please drop it. Itsmejudith 16:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Accusations Against Editor Padishah5000

Matt57, you might want to go ahead and make your accussation of "Sockpuppetry" against my account Padishah5000, and the accidental use of my "un-logged-in" IP:Address 68.4.159.70 on the article Da'i. You can do that here: WP:AN/I. Also, you should review the Wikipedia policy on Wikistalking. It is serious stuff. Keep on wikiing! Padishah5000 06:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. I didnt know it was your IP address. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan

Sorry, I'm passing on this one: I don't know enough about the image to know whether it's public domain, otherwise fair use, or something we'd need permission for. Vicki Rosenzweig 15:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

An article that may be of particular interest to you

I would suggest you read this. The bottom will be of particular interest to you. 112a873754 20:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: A.Z.

You need to alert A.Z. to the fact that you have removed his remarks. I would highly recommend that you revert your removals altogether; leave it to the bureaucrats to ignore valueless commentary. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that my commentary is valueless? A.Z. 04:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA is a place for community members to discuss the merits of the candidates; its existence and its daily proceedings in which candidates are frequently rejected contradict your premise. You are basically rejecting the validity of the process, and while that is certainly a defensible position, we've already accepted the process as valid for the purpose of this RfA, so your commentary is of little use to us in that venue. A better place to take your ideas would be Wikipedia talk:Administrators or WT:RFA. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean? And this? A.Z. 04:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I'm reverting all of this. The 'crats have indicated numerous times that what is and isn't an invalid vote is not for individuals in the community to decide. You can only strike votes of indefinitely blocked users, and indent votes of SPAs, likely socks, etc. Everything else just leave evidence of and let the 'crats decide how much weight to give it.--Chaser - T 04:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I already reverted most of it. Another user also reverted one of the edits. A.Z. 04:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't do that again. Mackensen (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree that you should revert your removals. Bureaucrats can make those calls on their own. It is not up to you (or any other editor) to remove good faith opinions at RFA, thanks. RxS 04:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (and I see they've been reverted)

Ok its all been reverted now by the time I came back. What kind of vote was that anyway? "Everyone should be an administrator"? Thats making a joke out of the whole RfA thing. Anyway, if some admins think it should stay I guess whatever you guys wanna do. You have to admit, the closing admins sometimes dont read all the votes, so the end effect of this kind of vote could effect the voting process wrongly. Again I repeat, A.Z. made a joke out of the RfA process. What if I went around and did a "Keep" on all AfD's saying "All article should be be kept". Thats an invalid vote (or whatever you want to call it) and so it was in this case too. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, make a note of it, with a link to his contribution log or a few examples. But deciding whether or not a vote is valid takes us down a slippery slope no one wants to see the bottom of. You can still add comments on voting behavior to these live RFAs.--Chaser - T 05:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that the closing bureaucrats don't read all the discussion is a pretty serious one, what's the basis for it? Christopher Parham (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this vote appropriate to flood all the RfA's, or does his viewpoint belong on "Village Proposals"? Are "votes" not meant to be meaningful? What if I said "Oppose, no one should be an admin" - is that acceptable too? I'm surprised to see you guys going along with him. It effects the 75% number, does it not? And does that number not effect the closing admin's judgement at all? This wasa frivolous vote and should have been removed. I repeat, its making a joke out of the RfA process. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Try this and add that previously he voted support without any explanation. I don't know how much weight is given to those; probably less in close calls. The current comments you left are just naked assertions without evidence.--Chaser - T 05:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not strictly a vote and the closing bureaucrat has some leeway when evaluating an RFA. Now, how much leeway is hotly contested these days but they do have enough to toss out obvious joke/troll comments. Whatever you might think of the concept that everyone should be an admin I bet you'd find some support for that here and there so it's not so outrageous that it make it invalid. Jimbo may even have some sympathy for the thought. Anyway, it's best to let everyone speaking in good faith to have their say...a bureaucrat will work it out one way or another. RxS 05:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If he's allowed to give frivolous support votes like this, I should be allowed to give similiar oppose votes, which I have done now to balance the numbers out. Each point on that list is supposed to be a reason of support or opposition specific to that candidate, and not "Today's saturday so everyone's getting a Support from me". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for balance, that's not the right way of doing it. Typical passage rate is 75%, so one oppose cancels three support votes. Please reconsider that protest vote.--Chaser - T 05:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

How about I give you the same reply you gave to me: The 'crats have indicated numerous times that what is and isn't an invalid vote is not for individuals in the community to decide. You can only strike votes of indefinitely blocked users, and indent votes of SPAs, likely socks, etc. Everything else just leave evidence of and let the 'crats decide how much weight to give it.. Sorry, I'm not taking it back. If you want to leave a comment at the bottom, thats up to you. This is all because of immature Wikipedia policies. Policies should reject and delete votes like this that turn the process into a joke. That includes sockpuppets by the way, of which I've seen enough appearing on AfD's to pollute the whole page and yet, policies are angelic enough to let them do that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, just to make it more clear: do you see the inconsistency? When I said this is effecting the numbers, you said "numbers dont matter". When I made the oppose vote, you came and said "numbers do matter, please reconsider". Do you see that you're not applying your own standards to me? Please reflect. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right.--Chaser - T 05:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're doing yourself any favors here. If you think policy toward certain kinds of votes at RFA needs tuning, bring it to the talk page. Don't try and fight it out on each individual RFA...RxS 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll listen to your comments if you tell A.Z. the same, i.e. not to push some policy on RfA's (his policy is that everyone should be an admin, which clearly belongs on the Talk page, not on everyone's RfA page). I'm sorry, you'll have to be consistent. If you're tolerating A.Z's vote, you have to tolerate mine as well. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not caring about this issue any longer. I had to do what I had to do, i.e. balance out those frivolous votes. Maybe it will also help people think about making policies on what kind of votes should be allowed to stay on these 'vote' processes and what kind should be deleted (not struck out). In any case according to current policies I have a right to cast my vote as did A.Z.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are going to ignore these kinds of votes if it's a close case, so don't worry about it. Andre (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey there.

I don't usually discuss votes outside the RfA, but you do realize that since it takes about 75% support to pass a RfA, a single oppose balances out three supports?

I really don't mind opposition, but I hope you mean to oppose my RfA, not just cancel out a silly support (and, if you look at it, not all opposes are that solid either; thing pretty much balance out on their own).  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 06:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I didnt meant to. Admins werent allowing me to remove the other guy's invalid vote so I had to do something myself. I cancelled it out now since you requested. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. But try to have a bit of faith in the system. Things like that do cancel out: look at the editor that goes around with opposes to everyone who dares self-nominate. There are others.

You are welcome to look at my work and feel I shouldn't get the mop yet— I actually value criticism, when it's criticism about what I did, not some random passer-by. — Coren ^(talk) 06:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. Random passerby's should not be allowed to oppose or support. That was my point. When admins didnt delete the other guy's support vote, they were allowing a random passerby to spoil the process. Thats all I could do to nuetralize that spoil. We dont have policies for this thing. As expected there wont be any agreement ever, but I tried to raise this issue here.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giggy

Dear Matt57, Could you remove your opposition to Giggy's RfA? He's a good editor and I don't see why his RfA should be the victim of a dispute between you and AZ/your opposition to AZ reasoning. So out of courtesy, could you remove your opposition to Giggy's RfA? If you choose not to, then there's nothing I can do about it. So its all up to you. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 08:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cant remove it, sorry. It shouldnt effect their rfa anyway, they're doing pretty good. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

From Muhammad to Elonka

Matt, I do respect your interpretation. What I ask you to suppose is that other Wikipedians might conclude one policy weighs a little heavier and another a little lighter. It's one thing to jettison WP:CENSOR and AFD the pornography articles (or compromise with those who do). I've stood very firm against that impulse - whatever topic is at hand - and if I thought that were operating with Elonka I'd be as opposed to this nomination as you are.

When I put Daniel Brandt's and Seth Finkelstein's biographies up for deletion I asked people to tip the consensus scale a bit lighter on WP:V and heavier at WP:BLP. I did my best to clarify exactly how far that would go - to give a reasoned basis for the request - and consensus did shift. I don't recall whether you agreed with me on that one or not, but you may know Daniel Brandt repaid me by adding my username to his "Hive Mind" page, which was poor sportsmanship to say the least. But I don't regret asking the community to weigh that balance. And I don't think I was breaking WP:V on that scale.

At Joan of Arc (who in some odd ways is a good parallel to Muhammad when you think about it) I dealt with an opposite challenge: a strongly Catholic POV dominated the article throughout, and as a reflection of that nearly all of the images were devotional portraits when I began editing. That really didn't convey very much to the reader because the only actual portrait she sat for was lost in the fifteenth century. So I found a photo of the house where she was born (it still stands) and a period map of France and the ruin of the castle where she met the king of France, a fortification from one of her battles, an actual portrait of the king she crowned, and a photo of the cathedral where the coronation took place. I even added an image of her signature. And that approach - I am absolutely certain - was more informative and more NPOV. That page page got featured in part through those efforts so maybe I'm onto something? Durova^Charge! 23:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you're having to deal with criticism of Elonka. I feel you shouldnt. You should nominate and let her go. People who deserve to be an admin find it no problem defending themselves at an RfA (well first they dont let people find anything to criticize about). Then if she can be a good admin, believe me its her who should be writing the responses you wrote above. Instead if you look at her RfA, she's not responding to people much as if she doesnt care. Not caring is what I saw at the Kaab article too. She wanted her way, thats it. Good admins work with people and listen and talk to them and show a genuine concern. That was exceptional stuff then you did at the Joan of Arc, you went out of your way literally to get the pictures and improve the article. We already had the images for Kaaba. The last thing we needed is something coming and trying to get those images out and as Beit Or put it so succintly: "An admin should know better than arguing for the removal of images as Elonka did on Talk:Kaaba. The community cannot entrust the tools to an editor for whom someone's sentiments trump policy.", but really you shouldnt feel you have to defend Elonka. Its she who should stand up for everything she's done and said. Its possible to have a great sense of judgement and rationale. Here's one RfA that passed with flying colors recently. If you look at this user's contribs, she has an excellent sense of judgement and rationale and I supported her, so its not that I'm hammering everyone. So again, these were historic images like no other and in short, policy was overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the images. CENSOR applies very strongly. UNDUE applies very weak. Having images of Muhammad around is now not a minority affair anyway because of Muhammad cartoons being printed everywhere. So UNDUE applies very weak.

Its all there on her talk page. If she becomes an admin, you can be sure as one user put it, she's one admin that might need to be de-sysopped and therefore, why go through the trouble. She's a good editor and all, but being an admin requires solid rational thinking in the right direction. Thats not what I saw happening in Kaaba. It was all wrong. She was trying to make people happy I think and it back fired. One should do the right thing, no matter what. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what? I'm serious about the offer I made in my conomination. I hope I never need to make good on it and I don't think I will, but bear it in mind. Regards, Durova^Charge! 15:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you had to make that kind of safety route just in case, its not safe. A person should be an admin if no one could even dream of them getting an rfc. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tabercil

I notice you did strike your oppose to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giggy. Could you also do so for Tabercil? It probably won't affect him passing, but it will make the difference between merely passing, and passing unanimously, which, I humbly submit, might be a nice thing. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thank you! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Top level article

Hi there. Can you tell me what a 'top level article' is and where I can find policy on top level articles in Wikipedia, especially as regards categorisation ? TIA. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question. I have been trying to clear up the Islam category page for a while and have only just got round to completing that task. The articles that I have kept, I chose very judiciously. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that WP page and it says nothing about which articles should be placed in the top level category page. The only reason I want List of Islamic terms in Arabic in the Islam cat page is that it is one of the main things that users of WP will want to look at; exactly the same argument goes for Portal:Islam. Using your argument, if the former is removed, then so should the latter. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think its justified, sounds good to me. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka's RfA

You seem pretty solidly against Elonka's adminship and this is of course perfectly fine. However, this is going way overboard. Please assume good faith and remember to keep a cool head when expressing your thoughts. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That advice came from the heart. If she really did say sorry to people, it would all be over. She should have went for a Editor review before standing up for another RfA to make sure she was in the right place before doing an rfa, especially that she'd had problems before. I think she just doesnt care. If she did, she would make amends. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I reverted that last addition. This is completely uncalled for. A couple of editors have already told you to cool down. As I said, I don't mind you opposing Elonka but civility is paramount and you seem to have lost track of it. Pascal.Tesson 02:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly will not get into an edit war over this. But I stand by my initial evaluation that your tone on Elonka's RfA is grossly inappropriate and that your point could be made without it. Pascal.Tesson 03:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime sock?

Hi Matt, can you please use your Kirby nose and have a sniff at [4] this dude? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirby nose, hehe. Kirbytime wasnt able to do a cleanup job like that one. If it involves actually writing anything, he couldnt have done that. But its a sock of someone alright. The way he removed a link to Allegations of Israeli apartheid and replaced it with Anti-Arabism, I would have reverted his edit on the basis of just that. Keep talking to him. Maybe he's reverting to someone else's earlier version. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

regarding edits to Islam/suicide articles

WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source, and certainly not a reliable source for attributing statements to the Pentagon. ITAQALLAH 18:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That article is mostly OR. This has a video of a sheikh saying suicide bombings are OK in Islam. Also someone who is being supported by tax dollars essentially says the same thing here. Arrow740 20:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

and there are plenty of others- the majority, in fact- who say otherwise. regardless, are you claiming that WND is a reliable source or not? ITAQALLAH 21:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For criticism, yes. For statements of fact, generally not. A critic's statements about facts used to further an argument would fall in the former category. Arrow740 21:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

extremist, unscholarly sources aren't "reliable sources" for "criticism". ITAQALLAH 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are labeling them as such indicates that they are probably notable critics. Arrow740 22:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Matt57

Hello. I am RS2007. Why don't you want to became the administrator? I looked at your contributions and I think you have done a great job. Best of luck! RS2007 13:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Chigs image

I don't have the second image. It was uploaded by User:Q Original, not by me. Anyway: User:Matthew (coincidence of your names is... fascinating) first broke 3RRR.LexingtonDark 11:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Dunin edit

In this edit, where you remove information for not having sources, you actually removed several sources.

• "The paper was first presented at the ARS 17th Annual Meeting and Space Flight Exposition in Los Angeles, in November 1962, and published in the AIAA Journal in March 1964." That's a source, the AIAA Journal, March 1964.
• [5] was an embedded link. That's another source. (It's apparently moved to [6], looking at the Internet Archive.) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone who presents a paper in that journal is notable. The other link has nothing on Dunin. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not my point; you'll notice I didn't say a word about whether the subject is notable or not. If you believe the person isn't notable enough for an article, the way to show that is to nominate the article for deletion, not to delete information from their article. Not every bit of information in an article has to individually suffice to make the person in the article notable or be deleted, merely the sum of it. The second link seems to be referring to his company. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, my point is that you deleted sources from the article. Please restore them, and the sourced information. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the right way is to first place a {{notability}} tag in an article, so people are given some time to establish notability if it exists. You're an admin. How come you dont know this? We need multiple 3rd party non-trivial reliable sources in order for the article to stay. I want to give people the time to find those sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of importance to restore there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect, there is no such tag in the article. And it doesn't seem appropriate to remove those sources that do exist, if your goal is to encourage people to find more. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Elonka to respond about all this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I suspected it might be that, but didn't want to assume bad faith. This should be about the article, not about your relations with any particular editor. Deleting information in order to get a specific editor to respond is called disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. If you want Elonka to respond, post on her talk page, not on an encyclopedia article. Reverting, and cautioning you to be more careful. If you want to delete unsourced content, don't delete the sources along with it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

?? What are you doing? You didnt have to restore all the information. You're being disruptive by putting back unsourced information. Please dont do that again. Dont put back unsourced OR back into the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You think its okay to create 8 new articles about my family members and write about what they do in their spare time and who they married and how many kids they had and where they worked? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said a word about your family members, and don't intend to, since I don't know who you are. If you're William Wales or Marlon Jackson then having 8 articles about your family members would be easily appropriate. If you're asking me about Stanley Dunin specifically, I'm not sure if he meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). But it's not a speedy delete, there's certainly some assertion of notability. However that wasn't my point, which was deletion of sourced information. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much more careful. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Aol Vandal

Where did you found that His excellency was the parent sock of the AOL vandal that has been vandalizing the same Canadian Conservative-opponent politician articles for several weeks. If it's the case, then this is important for sock reports. I was trying to found the main puppeteer for weeks. I've tought that User:Aol Worker was the main puppet. Thanks again.--JForget 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I was guessing from the fact that he's had other IP's in virginia before ([7]) and the way he suddenly comes and edits Islam related articles. If that politician has nothing to do with Islam, it might be someone else. But you're the head quarters may be in the same location while the sock puppet might be in a different location.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. Best wishes, Elonka 03:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Dunin Articles - Vanity?

Hey, don't gut the articles. You can try AfD on some of the weakest ones. Also, run Google searches and see if other references exist. If they do, add them in good faith. Your opinion will carry a lot more weight if you do it the way I suggest. You reputation is a lot more important than whether these articles survive or not. Jehochman ^Talk 03:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeho, thanks, I'm waiting for Elonka's response on this before doing anything further. I did do a search for Antonin Dunin and found nothing on Google except references from Elonka. Yes I'll definitely try my best to justify inclusion before afd'ing any article because if people can find references easily, it'll reflect badly on the AfD. On many articles, I've not seen any non-trivial 3prd party references so lets see if anyone can find them. If they can be included, the unsourced OR has to go in any case. thanks for checking. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I will support AfD on at least two of these articles if things remain as they are today. It's probably better to leave in all the content if AfD is the solution. If AfD fails, then they could be stubbed. Better to do that after everyone has a chance to look and a consensus emerges. Jehochman ^Talk 03:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, yea, I'll deal with one article at a time, giving it plenty of time. Alright then, I'll look into leaving the content back before Afd'ing, if thats the right thing to do. I'll ask people around who have edited the articles in any way if they can find more sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: article leads don't need to be referenced (but can be). The lead summarizes the rest of the article. If the lead says something that is explained later on with a references, that is sufficient. Jehochman ^Talk 06:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks, got it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of Power

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

Edina Lekovic

Since your article was substantially different, you may wish to simply talk to SV about having it undeleted rather than go through the entire DRV process. When in doubt, it makes more sense to talk to deleting admins before going through lengthy process. JoshuaZ 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if she'll listen to me but ok then I'll try. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I supported you at the DRV, but note that Image:Edina Lekovic-screenshot from CNN.jpg is almost certainly not Fair Use; it's just a picture to show what she looks like, and since she is living, and not reclusive, even showing up to give speeches and such, a free image clearly can be created. Have you tried just emailing her and asking for one? Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission is the official page, but User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content is advice from someone who is excellent at it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Edina_Lekovic-screenshot_from_CNN.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Edina_Lekovic-screenshot_from_CNN.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Edina Lekovic-screenshot from CNN.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Edina Lekovic-screenshot from CNN.jpg. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahmed Yassin

Are you talking about removing "Hamas is a terrorist organization" or "Antisemitism"? There are no sources for "Antisemitism".Bless sins 01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Your current campaign

Ok, you made your point (rabidly) on the RfA. Going around decimating articles claiming they're all unreferenced and original research is getting a bit pointy, don't you think? Please stop and consider that your actions aren't doing anything to help the project. Shell ^babelfish 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Please stop, Matt57. You are applying the wrong standards. Most of these people are not living, so the standard for including facts is "reference-able" not "referenced." - Jehochman ^Talk 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So can I make up a page for a dead "John Tree" and put in OR there? I dont think so, right? You guys need to stop being bodyguards of Elonka or her family articles.

Now: do you have any problems with the OR I deleted at Antoni Dunin? If so, I'll see you there on the talk pages. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope - notice I didn't revert that because I don't believe the information was contained in the references in that case. I'm working on some research atm to see if any references for that information can be found - things from Poland before WWII can be difficult at best though :( Shell ^babelfish 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What information did you bring back that was mentioned in the references? Make sure you guys read WP:V:

Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

So, dont bring in anything without providing a reference. If its difficult to find information on anything, it will be deleted. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted after discussion, no? ~ Riana ⁂ 02:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put in tags for some time now in some of the articles and no one came to put in references. Elonka too choose to completely ignore me when I asked her about what should be done about these articles she made. Its time for the articles or the OR to go. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing requirements

Matt, let me stress the following points:

1. Our policy does not require inline citation. It is totally acceptable to list the sources used to write the article at the end of it. Nowhere does it say each statement has to be individually referenced, just that there must be a source for it.
2. Print references are just as good as online ones. The fact that you are unable at this moment to look them up and read them is immaterial. Also, foreign language sources are acceptable even if you cannot understand the language they are in.

Please bear these points in mind which going about your aggressive campaign. WjBscribe 02:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont care if you're going to make allegations about my 'campaign'. So is your action to defend her articles needlessly a campaign (in fact you campaigned for her by creating her RfA). On to more important things: WP:V says if anything is challenged, it may be removed. You read that, right? Here you go again:

Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

There. What are the references saying? Nothing that we can see. The editor who put them in (Elonka) refuses to respond to my questions. I have no choice but to remove them as dubious, unreliable and most of all unverifiable. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say that those reliable sources have to be part of an inline citation. They can be validly added to the end of an article and the fact that you are unable at present to obtain a copy of the sources does not make then "unverifiable". Clearly all those publications could be obtained and checked for the information, therefore they are acceptable sources. WjBscribe 02:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So what if I made an article on "Johny Loonytree" and put a reference that said "Moon magazine 1432, issue #451" - what if I made a false reference, or a reference that really didnt talk much about Loonytee? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I could say "there is no such reference", but not without bothering to check first. Shell ^babelfish 02:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I have made no false references, please do not accuse me of such. --Elonka 02:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ive asked you many times about what we should do about your family articles - why did you not respond before Elonka? What do the references say? If you have the references, why dont you put them in? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I did not accuse you of false references. AGF. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So which sources reliability are you challenging? Can you give some details? Right now, all I see is you blindly removing content without bothering to check references. And for the record, your deletions showed up on the IRC vandal bot as possible vandalism, which got me looking - seeing your contribs and user page made me look further. Shell ^babelfish 02:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, as I've said multiple times, I am no longer involved in the editing of those articles. I have read them, and to my knowledge the information that is in those articles is both true and sourced. If you have a specific question about a specific fact, you are welcome to ask me, but right now you just seem to be wholesale deleting large chunks of information, which does not strike me as acting in good faith. I have also been concerned by the way that you seem to get focused on articles related to me, to the exclusion of anything else on Wikipedia. I recommend that you concentrate on working on multiple articles, not just Elonka-related ones. Other than that, I am not going to get involved. --Elonka 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes well, you dont have to do anything here. Your friends are willing to do anything to save your family articles. WP COI says, people cant put in information about their family members and 3rd party reliable sites must be provided. Thats the reply for you too, Shell. Elonka.com is not a reliable source for articles about Elonka's dad and mom. WP:COI says we need reliable 3rd party references. Since this was originally a COI issue where she wrote articles about her mom and dad and gave references from her personal site, why did you bring in back these invalid contestable contentious sources that violate WP:COI? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, why dont you start by telling me first why you didnt respond to my queries on your talk page for more than a week? And since you said I can ask you about any specific fact, all the articles are full of unreferenced unverifiable information. Why did you not put in these 3rd party references? Please start with Antoni Dunin. Rereferences to Elonka.com will have to go as per WP:COI. Every other statement will have to be referenced by 3rd party sources or I will remove it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, primary sources are perfectly acceptable for factual information. 3rd party sources have been added for claims outside of birth/death/children/birthplace factual type things. I also removed a number of statements from Antoni Dunin that were not basic fact - I'm sure Elonka knows where her grandfather was when he died, but I left that out for the time being. You also have to consider the time period and location you're dealing with here - you do know what happened in Poland to royal families and many others during WWII? As a side note, why are you so interested in Elonka's involvement if you feel the COI is so great a problem? Shell ^babelfish 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask for an RfC then. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you've now taken to using sockpuppet accounts to avoid the WP:3RR, I've taken the issue to ANI in the hopes of having some outside editors look at the situation. Please try continuing dispute resolution and discussing the issues instead of using methods that are only going to cause problems. Shell ^babelfish 04:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, lol. Thats not my sock puppet. Maybe it was yours, or I will say, Elonka's. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for violation of the three-revert rule on Antoni Dunin and various other articles through the use of obvious sockpuppets, MiiMiiMiiM and MiiMiiM. You may contest this block with {{unblock|your reason here...}}.--Chaser - T 04:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I'm not an idiot. This is not my sockpuppet. I think making sock puppets to make someone look bad is a common occurence in Wikipedia. It's not the first time I've seen this. Who's sock puppet is this? Shell? Elonka? Michael? It could even be SlimVirgin's. Can we do a Checkuser and find out? It definitely a sock of someone here. Go do a Checkuser. We'll find out who's sock it is. Do it, please. Ok, you know what, it might be a sock of His excellency (talk · contribs). This is a user who has attacked me in the past a lot and actually it could be Kirbytime (talk · contribs) too, both of these are banned users. His excellency (talk · contribs) made a sock puppet at Edina Lekovic, an article I made. I'm going to file a CheckUser on myself. That will tell us who's sock it was. Then you can unblock me.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I'm not an '''idiot'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MiiMiiM This] is not my sockpuppet. I think making sock puppets to make someone look bad is a common occurence in Wikipedia. It's not the first time I've seen this. Who's sock puppet is this? Shell? Elonka? Michael? It could even be SlimVirgin's. Can we do a Checkuser and find out? It definitely a sock of someone here. Go do a Checkuser. We'll find out who's sock it is. Do it, please. Ok, you know what, it might be a sock of [[User:His excellency|His excellency]] ([[User talk:His excellency|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/His excellency|contribs]]). This is a user who has attacked me in the past a lot and actually it could be [[User:Kirbytime|Kirbytime]] ([[User talk:Kirbytime|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Kirbytime|contribs]]) too, both of these are banned users. [[User:His excellency|His excellency]] ([[User talk:His excellency|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/His excellency|contribs]]) made a sock puppet at [[Edina Lekovic]], an article I made. I'm going to file a CheckUser on myself. That will tell us who's sock it was. Then you can unblock me. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm not an '''idiot'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MiiMiiM This] is not my sockpuppet. I think making sock puppets to make someone look bad is a common occurence in Wikipedia. It's not the first time I've seen this. Who's sock puppet is this? Shell? Elonka? Michael? It could even be SlimVirgin's. Can we do a Checkuser and find out? It definitely a sock of someone here. Go do a Checkuser. We'll find out who's sock it is. Do it, please. Ok, you know what, it might be a sock of [[User:His excellency|His excellency]] ([[User talk:His excellency|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/His excellency|contribs]]). This is a user who has attacked me in the past a lot and actually it could be [[User:Kirbytime|Kirbytime]] ([[User talk:Kirbytime|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Kirbytime|contribs]]) too, both of these are banned users. [[User:His excellency|His excellency]] ([[User talk:His excellency|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/His excellency|contribs]]) made a sock puppet at [[Edina Lekovic]], an article I made. I'm going to file a CheckUser on myself. That will tell us who's sock it was. Then you can unblock me. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm not an '''idiot'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MiiMiiM This] is not my sockpuppet. I think making sock puppets to make someone look bad is a common occurence in Wikipedia. It's not the first time I've seen this. Who's sock puppet is this? Shell? Elonka? Michael? It could even be SlimVirgin's. Can we do a Checkuser and find out? It definitely a sock of someone here. Go do a Checkuser. We'll find out who's sock it is. Do it, please. Ok, you know what, it might be a sock of [[User:His excellency|His excellency]] ([[User talk:His excellency|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/His excellency|contribs]]). This is a user who has attacked me in the past a lot and actually it could be [[User:Kirbytime|Kirbytime]] ([[User talk:Kirbytime|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Kirbytime|contribs]]) too, both of these are banned users. [[User:His excellency|His excellency]] ([[User talk:His excellency|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/His excellency|contribs]]) made a sock puppet at [[Edina Lekovic]], an article I made. I'm going to file a CheckUser on myself. That will tell us who's sock it was. Then you can unblock me. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}