User talk:Matt Lewis

London Riot AfD

The AfD for the 2011 London riots article is an obvious infringement of WP:POINT. The article is blatantly worthy of including. Apologies for being so blunt. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You are a major contributer but have given it a (very) speedy keep?? I'm not accepting that, and I'm going to undo your decision: you are too involved. This must be debated properly and the article is not going anywhere until a decision is made - please take a step back. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, this is a blatant WP:POINT infringement - please don't undo this. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You are abusing your position as an admin. And blatantly blocking debate. Why? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the idea of Wikipedia not covering breaking news stories (and you wouldn't be the first) there are other areas to go. Perhaps review WP:NOTNEWS and go to the talk page there. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish to place a delete template and you have stopped me from doing it to make sure the article is kept alive. In your excitement you have abused you position, and I'll be placing a RFC/u. What did you expect? This is totally unacceptable. You are deliberately stopping debate, even when you will probably get what you want anyway. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There had already been an AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2011_Tottenham_riots.©Geni 00:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine but please take this from someone who has been here a while and seen it all - it's not worth it. I ask you to take my advice and discuss this at the appropriate place. In fact, join in this discussion which is very much related to what you are saying. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been here since 2006 - don't tell me what is appropriate or not. An Afd is clearly appropriate - it's made for the job. This is spreading to Liverpool - Wikipedia has no right to do this imo. I'll try the undo again - it didn't work first time. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to be causing any grief here but please realise that this will not work. I won't revert anything you do but others will. I understand your point but the majority of people see Wikipedia as a highly dynamic encyclopaedia that contains the very latest information. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Little I do here does work, but this has still got to be done. Obviously I won't do the RFCc/u as you've allowed me to replace the Afd page. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia has a long standing practice of covering significant events close to the time they happen and AFD cannot and should not change that. Given the previous AFD on the article opening an second one without some pretty good arguments is going to have a fairly predictable result.©Geni 01:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are people so keen on negative predictions in this place? Let's do things properly. This is reminding me of when people get warned for what they might possibly do (or get warned based simply on having a block or two in the 'log' perhaps). Matt Lewis (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD is not the proper place to try and change or establish policy. AfD is a place that exists to implement existing policy. So far you've completely failed to give any policies that backup your proposed deletion. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 01:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just done it - but it's been speedy deleted again. I've been put under outrageous pressure here. For what? You are simply stifling debate. Absolutely outrageous. I'm undoing it again. Go and block me for it - it's what you people are good for. For heaven's sake - what going to happen? It's only bloody debate - I'm not censoring the riots. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm adding the point here that I did very specifically want to see an Article for Deletion - not just to encourage general debate on 'meta' issues. The original AfD was just 1 hour long - which gave no chance for non-contributing (ie 'keep' voters) to see it and have a say. Clearly it should have lasted the proper amount of time (ie a few days) - in which case I would have simply seen it and added my point of view. At this juncture I will build a case somewhere else.

I think a lesson in quick-closing AfD's needs to be learnt here. It's basically hitting serious people who want to have their say with a bat, and creates a forged "there is consensus, so shut up" scenario. AfD's are quite-simply made for the job: the debate on whether to keep the article is kept away from the main discussion pages, and the article continues while the AfD debate takes place. Hurrying an AfD like this to a quick close was needless, and was guaranteed to cause problems. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we please put this to bed? The article has received over 54000 views so I think that establishes a demand for it. I really don't think that you will get anywhere while you focus on this article specifically rather than the issues of WP:NOTNEWS. violet/riga _^[talk] 01:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No - the argument that "people expect it" is a terrible one in my view, and it is shocking and frightening to me how many people have gone to WP for breaking news. Figures are no barometer of quality or correctness. How about putting up porn and seeing how many people come and see that? And I've said many times that the "you won't get anywhere" arguments are miserable too. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The extreme irony of you shouting about the "Absolutely outrageous" way that people are "stifling debate" by shutting-down your attempt to CENSOR Wikipedia's content about the riots in England is not lost on anyone. I have no idea why you're so obsessed with deleting Wikipedia's content about the riots in England - an issue that has received headline coverage from every major media organisation in the world - but you've managed to bring your own reputation into disrepute among the editorial community. Deterence ^Talk 02:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if you say so (or 'shout' so) then it must be true: that's how Wikipedia networking works isn't it? Be sure to tell others won't you. I don't know who you are but if you are a 'UK Riots' contributor you are simply proving how far from 'journalistic quality' Wikipedian's are, despite no-doubt many of their aspirations. This is breaking news, and the amateurism here is a simple fact. The high-pitched NO CENSORSHIP ON WIKIPEDIA argument divides Wikipedians (you must know that), and the actual truth here is that all of my comments criticising the article (apart from here on my talk page) have at some point been 'moved along' in some way. Every single one of them. So who is (so needlessly) censoring? If you understand "irony" you must see your own foolishness in calling me the "censor". The original AfD lasted just 1 hour - how on earth do you find any non-contributing (ie non 'keep') input in that? If it was left for a reasonable time none of this would have happened. The excitement has just overtaken people's senses I think.

Anyway Deterence - it is you are shouting here in your attempt to make it look like I've been 'SHOUTING' when I haven't. That's how basic Wikipedia is sometimes, alas. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

—David Levy 02:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matt, I've responded to your comment on my talkpage. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want "closure" stop playing the victim. You're the one who started all this. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a little unnecessary at this point, I think, Hot Stop. Let the guy gather his thoughts, and maybe he'll understand the frustration that's been expressed against him. He certainly seems to be doing so, based on his last comment to me anyway. Lay off him for a bit, yeah? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that came off as confrontational, but the only reason we're still having these conversations is because he's continuing them. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's more than "a little unnecessary" at any point Passerby - it's another childish slur from someone. As you can see from this (and I cannot believe you people can't see it by now) 'we' are still having these 'conversations' because of the provocative kicks I've had from people like Hot Stop every time I've been obliged to open my mouth - which has nearly all of it now been to simply defend myself from unfair personal comments. It's ridiculous. It's effectively all been variations of "you are 'disruptive' so shut up now - no son, no reply - I said totally shut up right now" the whole time. It may just be the case that some people wan't this article so badly that they are pushing AGF, civility, consensus, and all kinds of the lower-band guidelines really - just to make absolutely sure the article carries on absolutely unheeded even when it naturally is anyway - and I've simply not hindered anything or tried to (obviously, outside of my ultimate feeling that this isn't right for the enyclopedia). Like the smarter people have said, there is little to worry about in terms of article deletion whatever anyone says. But that is no reason people can't follow a procedure they have not seen acted out in the way they would have expected (ie the first 1 hour Afd, which nearly everyone who wasn't writing it would have missed like me), or have a simple 'say' that isn't abused then hidden away. What Wikipedia does these days is simply "give people what they expect to read", as a 'keep' voter said at the Afd - which sounded just a little Murdochian to me.

I wonder if I will still be wound-up over this, even though I've had my say about 90% of meaningful conversation ago? What will my eventual Village Pump 'meta' experience be like I wonder? Will I constantly hear the word "disruption" like Wikipedia is some kind of news agency negotiating a delicate inside scoop? It has just not been comparable to any other article I've editing in, including the United Kingdom aticle itself, and is honestly making me wonder where Wikipedia is going with live news. Isn't there a Wikinews for stuff like this? None of the newspapers enjoy the way Wikipedia recycle their stories at these breaking-news times, believe me. I feel this minute like looking through the article to collect diffs for things that could have dangerously mis-lead people, or even-worse could have provoked more rioting - though of course it can be argued that the whole 'article' does that by making these stories a major 2011 'event', while most decent papers were still being careful about what to call things. But that's Anywhere Sourcing combined with Amateur Reporting for you, isn't it fellow 'encyclopedia builders' (encyclopedic? This developing story? hmmm.) Given the whole internet-lead nature of the rioting, the press could be very happy to fold Wikipedia in with Twitter et al if the underlying quality has been as poor as I fear it has been (and given the quality of the contributing editors I've had the real misfortune to be addressed by, I think I have a right to be fearful on that count). Wikipedia would natuarally deserve whatever it might get if a professional actually shed a light on it.

OK - I'm clearly just getting annoyed again now. May I remind people that this is my talk page? I've noticed that when people follow your edits around trying to build a silly case against you, they tend to imagine that every diff they click on was outrageously clogging-up the same imagined major discussion page as the last diff that they imagined did exactly the same. I've not hindered anything, and anyone sensible can see that I've done precious little that is wrong - even with the worse possible realistic reading of 'disruption' - and this nonsense has also already been Closured (by me). Now please leave me alone people, I'm text-walling in annoyance when what I want to do, as I said earlier today, is take a break. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi matt. I also nominated that article for deletion but this was during the initial early days. The riots have by now escalated to a point where it is very reasonable to keep the 2011 England riots in place in my opinion. But with your persistence against consensus i will actually agree with David Levy's anaysis that it is disruptive. Pass a Method talk 14:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As I've said a number of times now I didn't even see the original Afd - it was closed in 1 hour, so nobody who wasn't actually writing the article (and thus 'keep' voting) got to see it or contribute. You commented on David's page about my "irresponsibility" on the starting another Afd without even back-reading anything - a typical story here. Just jump in and slag me off.

You know, what is this "it" that is disruptive? What is the "persistence against consensus"? I've defended consensus constantly as a Wikipedian - and I serious detest the idea that I haven't. Are you saying that responding to people being personal and rude is "ignoring a consensus" not do it? Well that is just gaming a serious rule in my opinion. Is disagreeing with David Levy's totally-unneeded 'final analysis' to me on his talk page really "ignoring consensus"? Is answering back when people who only need to read and leave a couple of comments but instead are being personal and rude "ignoring consensus"? I've got a human right to defend myself and just leave it there - but why the hell can't I without taking further crap from people? The fact is that certain people with a certain ideal for Wikipedia initially slammed me along with my argument - and that is not good for Wikipedia. Despite the wanton silliness of calling the 1-hour clearly-partisan AfD "overwhelming consensus" I have STILL constantly tried to “leave it there”. 'Wikipedia news' clearly means so much to some people that they've felt a irrepressible need to seriously slam not just my original argument, but to portray me as a disruptive person who is totally out on a limb. It's is totally-unnecessary, and a smackdown I do not wish to take. Of course I'm going to answer back when someone does that. But how dare I respond to that, with this "overwhelming consensus" for me to "leave it" - whatever discussion page I happen to be responding on (and people are clearly following me to).

I've asked for closure and peace over this a number of times now (inc just above your comment) but I still can't get it. Can't you see that side-kickers like you are being disruptive to me? You had your reason for your Afd, but my own reasons were not down to 'notability' at all - so the escalation makes no difference - escalation is in fact one of the very serious issues here. You are just another person totally-uncecessarily joining-in as far as I'm concerned. Why don't you leave me alone? You people must realise that you have been exacerbating things yourselves.

You know, if any of this is actually intended to discourage me from moving onto starting a 'meta discussion' (which I'm seriously thinking now that a lot of this "leave it" nonsense is really about - though no one is saying it outright) then know that I'm simply a different brand of Wikipedian to you people. I don't want breaking news here, and I've a right to simply say that without my integrity as a Wikipedian being compromised (collapsed, insulted, misrepresented etc) in any way. And as a individual I'm simply going to respond if that happens. In responding to people I have NOT hindered or 'disrupted' any article discussion/flow, and this has 99% now been outside of the article discussion. Apart from to put the Afd template up, I've not edited or touched the article itself. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't you see the original AFD? If you followed outlined at WP:BEFORE you'd have seen it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The article was only a day or two old - like everyone else I had no idea an AfD had come and gone in 1 hour. It didn't occur to me to search for one. If the original AfD was given reasonable time I simply would have seen it, posted my position on it, and left it there. As it happens, if new non-biased input is not found at an Afd noone can credibly go on about an "overwhelming consensus", whether 'keep' was a likely eventual outcome or not. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matt. I locked the AFD as it was closed and I wanted to avoid a continued dispute over that (and to avoid you getting blocked for edit warring over the close). I don't want to suppress debate, but consensus was quite clear over two AfDs and the DRV agreed too. Sure, I'd posted a link on the talk page but I can't imagine any admins disagreeing with my action though you can consult WP:AN for a review of my action if you like. Another factor is that pages linked to from the main page are not eligible for AfD - they need removing from the main page first.

On the wider issue of WP:NOTNEWS these riots surely satisfy WP:EVENT, which I helped to draft and interprets NOTNEWS in the context of events. If you want to discuss the use of Wikipedia to document breaking news (which is certainly done and is not generally seen as a breach of WP:NOTNEWS), then an RfC would be better than attempting more AfDs on this article, either at WT:NOT, Wikipedia talk:Notability (events) or WP:VPP.

As for the title, it has been progressively widened as the events themselves widened - cf to 2011 Libyan uprising changing to 2011 Libyan Civil War. 2011 London riots isn't OR, they were at the time called the "London riots"(see [1]) and "2011" is for disambiguation from all the other riots in London over the years. Fences&Windows 18:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have actually said that I want to do a meta RFC for ages now. I've been roundly criticised here, but not properly followed or understood. I wasn't actually criticising your action Fences - I think I just asked you to add a required template to it when I started the Afd 'review' process. It was all procedural stuff - or so I thought. The 'review' was actually pointed to me by an admin, as I've said. Obviously, I wish now I'd thought about starting to build an RFC instead of doing the Afd review, but it just seemed procedural (ie not 'disruptive, and certainly not 'consensus avoiding' from a 1-hour Afd and second that was speedy-closed). But RFC is the thing for sure.

You must see how I feel under the cosh. Everyone has their own sense of integrity, and a lot of this has been a case of failing to "respect the established editor" (or whatever the non-demonizing guideline is, along with failing to respond to the comment and not the editor). At the end of the day, I've done nothing that is really bad - at least for normal Wikipedia articles. From my point of view this has become really farcical, as since soon-after the AfD review, as I've said, I've just wanted to forget about all this and get a meta discussion going at RFC (or VPump as someone suggested) - you will find that I said that 90% of all this 'discussion' ago. I'm trying to resist the temptation right now of responding to David Levy's literal green ink on me. I hope you understand that it's not easy just to 'shut up' when you know that you've not done much wrong, and you disagree with someone else's totally unnecessary character-compromising analysis of it. Other people are clearly not going to stop commenting unless I do though, so I'm clearly going to have to rise above it and just stop reading the 'final' or 'passing' comments that people are making.

Wikipedia is all about editor's reputations and how people choose to respect (or disrespect) them, so it is never surprising when people get upset when they feel trampled on. Trying to address it in spiralling circumstances like this one becomes a catch22 situation unfortunately. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Matt, i also recommend you stop posting such long responses. Most of us don't feel like reading 20 lines. Sometimes admins will even avoid a discussion if it is excessively long. You could have summarized all the things you said in half or even a third in size. Peace Pass a Method talk 20:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Who else has recommended I don't post long responses? This is my talk page, and you have just completely made that up as far as I can see. I mainly repeat things because so many people just jump in and have a dig without reading back. Just give it a rest. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Having read all of the TL;DR, Matt, have you considered, just for a second, that you submitted the AfD just a few days after a previous AfD. Almost always such close AfDs are closed as speedy keep, or as SNOWy keep. Perhaps the reasons to close were not the best, but it was a procedural keep in any way you look at it. You should have taken it to WP:DRV if you felt the first AfD was mistaken, or waited a month or so before opening a new AfD. That's how things work, and you will not change them by being hostile. In fact, I have found the inverse to be true.--Cerejota (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read a single thing. When was I "hostile" for heaven's sake? And how can you criticise me after being so rude yourself here? As I've said about 20 times now, I didn't see the 1st Afd (few people did as it was 1h long - sigh), but I did start a WP:DRV on that 2nd AfD (which was also speedy-deleted, as was the WP:DRV procedure that a clearly-evil admin pointed me towards). I would rather be raped than go through that WP:DRV again. Can you people go now thanks. Thanks admin for all this - it's really appreciated, as always. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• You've indicated you will disengage from David's talk page now, and I hope you stick to that. Regardless, I will formally leave a note here reminding you that personal attacks, such as those you have made against him on his talk page, are not acceptable on Wikipedia and if you make further attacks, you are liable to be blocked by an administrator. It's not worth your time to drag this out further. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's over. David can have the last word, and I'm forgetting myself that it's his talk page anyway. On a genuinely passing note, per the article's current name he finishing with referring to it as the 'English Riots', and (as it goes) I don't actually agree with any part of that name. It's a complicated UK issue, with a number of reasons behind people's behaviour. As it happens I live in Cardiff (in Wales) and people were twittering to start trouble here - and some was actually caused in the city centre too, though obviously not enough in the scale of things (and the police dealt with it). IMO eventually the word "riots" will go eventually too - at about the time the aticle should have been started in the first place (ie when it wasn't breaking news, but when it has been treated by the wider world as a certain event in time, even it's still rumbling on to a degree). Wikipedia is supposed to fairly reflect the wider world's response to the wider world, not just the wider world itself. Too much has been selective and wiki-lead for my comfort. I think we need to either link the Wikipedia main page to a Wikinews report (which I would have contributed to as it wouldn't be a issue of principle so much), or either we need serious guidelines on how breaking news is dealt with - ie if we have to report on it (and that is essentially what we are doing) then it must follow deliberately-limiting guidelines. This article is just too big, to changeable, and too bad - whatever radio buttons people are hitting at the bottom. Wikipedia must grow up and acknowledge its ability to lead as well as simply 'inform'. Obviously people are supposed to follow the links, but in reality many people just absorb the article as fact. This will be yesterday's news to the wider world in no time at all, however we eventually deal with it on Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

RA RFA

Matt - You say on RA's RFA that "...and he doesn't like me talking like this...". Have you got a diff for that? Thks Fmph (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you ask? You could try his Oppose [here|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_24#Attempting_to_integrate_the_proposals]. He entered that debate straight from the Northern Ireland pages on his anti-"country" crusade. That "no brainer" Channel Islands in the British Isles RfC he dodgily started to. Somewhere else he said (there is so much debate involved in these areas) that he leaves the project for periods due to civility issues. I find his pro-active positions on Northern Ireland naming and British Isles infuriating, and the single time I've looked into it all all since, I read him exclaim in his exasperated way, something like "why is this small matter of naming NI so important to people!" I nearly fell off my chair when I read it, and was straight out again without a single edit - no joke. I find it tiresome beyond belief. This area has been his chosen wiki life from the start, and his recent comment in his RfA that he may never even need the tools was a chair-wobbler too. He typically seen a loophole in the silly WP:NONEED, and my reading is that he envisions the tools primarily as a stick, and adminship in general as badge of esteem. I wonder how many pages he has actually tagged for deletion - not quite 850 (ho ho ho) I think. Once upon a time the tools were a mop and a bucket for users who clearly need one. I would personally never award adminship status to someone who covets it the way he has - only to editors who would clearly benefit in their particular contributions from having it. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Matt - the reason I'm asking is that it's clear to me now, I don't understand what you are talking about.

Here's how I saw it initially:

You said in your Oppose to his RFA that "...(and he doesn't like me talking like this)..." and I assumed the this referred to how you were currently talking in that oppose section. I couldn't see why RA would not like how your were currently talking. But from your explanation above, I think the this referred to something else. I'm still not clear what that is. I'm think now that it refers to his opinions of how BI/UK/I/NI problems should be sorted. If thats all you are talking about then there isn't an issue (fgor me at least). I think I understand (but don't agree with) what you are saying. Fmph (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I could have been clearer I suppose, and no-doubt would have if I had the time and inclination at that time. It's the general "ABF" 'tone' he tends to object to (though he knows what is coming given his positioning), and also (on a more personal level) that I occasionally bring up his nationalism too. If I didn't think he edited on UK/IRE in his inter-accounts IP phase (and - even more to the point - for some reason pretended he didn't) I probably wouldn't have put a "strong" in front of the oppose, and merely made the valid point that he has always edited in a particular area (UK-IRE) where he simply holds strong and contentious positions (whatever people wrongly assume due to own claims, and his close admirers) and is simply far too biased to be an admin in it. It's just the way it is. People who agree with his positions may see otherwise - and whatever Sarah says, apart from some dedicated old-timers and the endless ineffectual and ultimately unconvincing sock farms, these areas on Wikipedia are dominated by nationalists. Sadly it just doesn't reflect the real world ratio at all - but Wikipedia is a bit like that alas: it a cultish thing. I wonder - why do you think he's always wanted adminship Fmph? Using his own rhetoric - if WP:NONEED is so salient - what's the big deal?! Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Island-of-Ireland3.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Island-of-Ireland3.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Island-of-Ireland7.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Island-of-Ireland7.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

UKCOUNTRYREFS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect UKCOUNTRYREFS. Since you had some involvement with the UKCOUNTRYREFS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). RA (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Kudos

[2] Best posting I've read in a long time. The one thing I'd add is that policies like NOTCENSORED don't just not help in that they are being overused, misused and abused like fück crazy; it's also that these arbitrary and arbitrarily interpretable policies are squatting in place of more sensible editorial advice. The reason, as you're probably aware, this never changes is because changing those policies to more useful versions and getting rid of abuse-ridden policies would necessarily also open up avenues to fight some of the more insidious single-interest long-term abusers on Wikipedia. Consider that there is a ludicrous rule telling people to assume that others are acting in good faith. There is no policy advising people to act in good faith themselves. It's just this perverse zombie anarchy. I left, why don't you? --213.196.192.204 (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we are proof that people who have seen the dark heart of Wikipedia can ever completely ignore it. In fact - who can completely ignore it? It's everywhere. I even hear its semi-recycled and half-created truths fill-out the news now, and appear in some of the better papers too. It's like the purest form of madness. Various creeping conveniences will end up destroying us all I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

for your beautifully clear description of the core issue here. I believe this is a deeply important RfC for the project. I believe our present stance towards offensive content is gravely misguided; it is essentially an attitude shared by autistic and psychopathic people, that other people don't really feel offense or, if they do, it doesn't matter. I put this down to the probable preponderance of autistic people online. But I get the impression the majority of people here believe we should take account of the offense we cause our reader, our subject and each other. So, whichever way this RfC goes, I'll continue pushing for a more moral and mature project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right about this Rfc - it's a really important one, and relates to a number of Wikipedia's core issues (images, readership, censorship, guideline-building - even basic ones like understanding consensus, how sources relate to it, and the value in weight).

Did I actually write that at the RfC? It was a bit of a bellow I suppose (I'd forgotten it), but it does contain some core truths.

It's true, there are a lot of people with autism online, and if you look at autism as a spectrum (including asperger's and the probably-undiagnosable differences some people have) you may have a point there. I think politics (or POV in general) typically has more to do with many people's ignorant positions though. Many people who cite NOTCENSORED don't care about it at all - it's just a means to a specific end. Most people just read or edit Wikipedia - they don't get involved. Certainly I'd agree that the majority of people merely reading Wikipedia would feel just as we do - and readership should be key. It always concerns me when Wikipedia is more into itself than those who read it.

Because I've wasted so much time on Wikipedia in the past, and often to such little effect (either at the time, or later when hard-won 'consensus' is eroded again), I think I need to see decent openings before I instigate things myself. My time is always a bit off and on too. The more people like us who push for things the better, but keeping cynicism at bay (stickability I suppose) is the key. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My feeling, at least in the current RfC, is that a principled attachment to NOTCENSORED combined with undervaluation of offensiveness drives more of the main players than bigotry does; though there are some long term players in the dispute that are undoubtedly motivated by Islamophobia. Anyway, thanks again for your clear presentation all through the RfC. I was heavily involved in the preceding ArbCom case and made a conscious decision to largely exempt myself from the RfC because ArbCom requested that the same old faces not dominate the RfC, and I couldn't have argued any better than you, Veritycheck and others did. I'm very pessimistic about the outcome, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If there are as many of the principled and nonreactive types as you say (I know some here are like this - as indeed many people are in life), then maybe there is hope, as theoretically those people should be able to see compelling reason when properly confronted with it. It will take another turn though. My bullets of the more salient points (from the discussion area at least) may not be considered as Consensus - but for me they represent the kind of plain logic that principled people should find attractive. I suppose it depends how stubborn they are. I'm not pessimistic, partly because I'm not planning to give up if it goes badly (and not being around before I can't really say). I think that 'View Image?' toggling is nothing short of an obligation for Wikipedia. It's very simple - be moderate with the images, and when it's suitable to do so - click to see. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I like that idea very much. You might want to touch base with Jayen466 (talk · contribs) (aka JN466) who is across the current state of play wrt image filter ideas. He may be able to give you a synopsis of where that's at with the Wikimedia Foundation; but I don't know if he's been following your toggle proposal carefully and you might persuade him to incorporate it into his thinking. It may be time for the community to draft a proposed way forward for the foundation, who seem to be in a state of learned helplessness after a battering by German Wikipedia over previous filter proposals.

By the way, I noticed your use of "green-ink letter" elsewhere on this page. I'd heard the term a couple of years ago on Australian radio, and they explained its meaning there, but couldn't find an online quick definition, so I just created a Wiktionary entry. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Matt, for past discussions of image hiding etc. see [3] on Meta. You're welcome to contribute ideas there, but basically the entire image hiding idea has currently ground to a halt, there being no discernible political will to implement one. JN466 03:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Parts of the United Kingdom

It's only a matter of time before the very neutral "...a part of..." is added to the intros of England, Scotland & Wales aswell. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, stop talking crap. Matt, I agree 100% with what you've had to say on this matter, both at Canterbury's talk page and at NI talk. The fact of the matter is, as you allude to, there's a determined bunch of editors, and let's not beat about the bush; Irish nationalist editors, who have largely taken control of the significant articles concerning Northern Ireland and related topics. They have pushed their point of view to such an extent that the world is now given to understand that Northern Ireland is not a country, the IRA are not terrorists, Derry is the correct name for Londonderry, the Ulster banner doesn't exist and there's much controversy over the use of the British Isles terminology. For a project that has as its core value not to push a particular point of view, these people have been massively successful in undermining it. There's nothing much we can do about it, other than give up, and take Wikipedia for what it is; namely an unreliable source, which is widely, and successfully, used as a propaganda tool by all and sundry with an axe to grind. Good luck. Van Speijk (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm barred from the British & Irish articles & I accept this as a badge of honour. However, neutrality 'will come' to the intros of all 4 of those articles. I argued (in the past) for the discriptive constituent country but the devolutionists wouldn't budge from country because they knew that the latter discriptive was mostly associated with 'sovereign states'. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

GD, you know how annoying that comment is to almost everyone but you. The Irish nationalists are only really concerned with Northern Ireland regarding the word "country" - they'd give up moaning about Wales and Scotland if they consolidated "part of the UK" at Northern Ireland. As they tend to want to break up the whole of UK, they are in reality fine with Wales being called a "country" - as long as Northern Ireland is not called one: Never, ever, Northern Ireland! It's why there is the awkward schism (so confusing to onlookers) between the Irish nationalists like RA (who want just the 'UK' to be called "country" and not it's "parts"), and the Welsh and Scottish nationalists like Snowded (who obviously are happy with Wales and Scotland being called "countries" - which of course in reality they are). People like Snowded need NI to be a country for uniformity, largely because the Irish nationalists keep arguing that Wales etc isn't (to stop NI from being one too!). Remember the Irish nationalist sock-farm Wikipeire? He didn't even want Wales to be called a 'nation' at one point, and created masses of accounts to back himself and his opinions up. It's all one big snake eating its own tail of course, and has gone on since Wikipedia started no doubt. Both nationalist 'parties' want Northern Ireland to be part of a united Ireland of course - though what they would do with hundreds of years worth of majority British in a single area is anyone guess - plant it with Irish I suppose and make sure the British are the minority this time.

GoodDay, what right do you think Wikipedia has to forge a "neutral position" (as you ask for above) between a simple reality (the existence of the United Kingdom) and a proposed reality (a reduced, or actually-disbanded United Kingdom)?

This whole area should only be about Wikipedia properly accepting Sovereignty (per WP:WEIGHT, as with everything), and accepting the widely and WP:COMMONUSE term by all parties - ie "country". Despite the language that the United Nations 'ISO' list of sovereign states uses, the UK - ie its people and its bloody government for God's sake - happily uses the term "countries" for all of its countries. They use it every day. It's an almost unique example of "contries within a country" (as the United Kingdom gov say). I know you don't like that GD, but who are you apart from a Canadian with his own complicated anti-monarchy agenda anyway? The whole area's been so clouded by the various tortured complexities. You've always looked for 'deals' to be made in these matters, but you must know they won't last longer than anything else that isn't based on a solid fact (ie the UK gov-usage and UK 'commonname' of "country") and a solid Wikipedia guideline for the general area (WP:Sovereignty).

Wikipedia must never 'equally-weight' minority nationalism with popular government, let alone giving the nationalists unfair credence and a piggyback up. The irony is that I've just been fighting for acceptance by Wikipedia that many Muslims are offended by certain images, while RA has always so-very-unpleasantly insinuates there is "offence caused" when Wikipedia uses 'country' for Northern Ireland. I can't tell you how much I deeply dislike his singular attitude, which entirely equates to his over-all presence here. I've seen the wonderful peace process in Northern Ireland violently shake - yet never be allowed to break by the fantastic people on both sides - and all the while this hideous horseshit has rumbled away on Wikipedia, as if those fighting for this social disruption are actually doing the world a favour by 'completing the encyclopedia' (using NOTCENSORED!, YOUDONTLIKEIT!, VERIFIED!, etc, etc). The offence caused over the Mohammad images is all about religious taboo, but the supposed-offence taken over using the word 'country' for NI is surely nothing but a thinly-veiled attack on the UK, and the online arm of a land-grab for the 'lost counties' of Ulster. Every time NI is mentioned somewhere important on Wikipedia (like the United Kingdom article) there has to be some kind of link to a 'bold' footnote alluding to the Troubles - it all makes me so desperately sorry for them there. Especially the youth, who are so proud of their religiously unaligned future - to wit, their country. That isn't a fancy - it's just an addition to the linguistic truth.

All of the UK is vulnerable to nationalist Wikipedians - and it will get severely worse over the next couple of years if nothing is done about it, as most UK-area editors will know. The challenge is to make Wikipedia first-accept, then properly-handle Sovereignty, and the wishes of sovereign governments in matters of nationality. The problem I think is that deep-down, too many Wikipedian's place their perceived 'fortress of everything' somehow actually above the world it's supposed to fairly and properly outline. Why consider sovereign wishes at all, they argue? This bizarrely parochial attitude to what is supposed to be an encyclopedia makes life here challenge to say the least. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The new intro at Northern Ireland, should be adopted at Wales, England & Scotland. I understand that Welsh & Scottish nationalist will put up a mega fight against such a neutral intro - but it will be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't troll me GD - I don't have the tolerance I used to. I took the time to write all the above, and you've just simply repeated yourself. COMMONNAME and sovereign-state wishes should come first. Put that in a general guideline and it's the end of all the shit. Add that nationalism should not automatically be assumed to have equal Weight to sovereignty, and we can all move on and do better things. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trolling, just pointing out that NPoV will eventually prevail on the other 3 articles-in-question, as it has finally done at NI. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to explain to you that "part of" is not an NPOV position (it's what avowed nationalists there have been fighting for for years for God's sake man). You can only really attain 'NPOV' here by taking direction from policy and sources. Can't you see that? You are providing sovereignty and nationalism equal Weight - and supporing a supposed (and actually anti-policy) 'middle ground' solution that the nationialists have been fighting for for years. I just see a bit of a numbskull when you are like this GD, esp when (like me) you would accept "constituent country" too! Matt Lewis (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

IMOS

In full agreement with you. Northern Ireland should not be covered by IMOS. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's pathetic isn't it. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure is. The article Londonderry being named Derry is pathetic, too. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Anti British POV in Ireland-related articles

Matt, I agree with just about everything you've asserted on various talk pages in recent days concerning the use of Irish articles, especially Northern Irish articles, to promote an anti-British POV. However, I don't think it's possible to influence the situation on the Talk pages. As you've noted, there's a cabal of editors, perhaps up to 10 in number, and with some relatively recent recruits, who push the nationalist agenda unremittingly. There is no such cabal of opposing unionist editors. Those editors, of which I am not one, tend to operate individually and are not as 'organised', if that's the correct word. Consequently we have the deplorable situation of an insidious, creeping anti-British POV that is difficult to control. I'm sure I don't need to highlight the many articles where this is a major problem. This situation is a great pity, because it devalues Wikipedia as a whole; the project can no longer be trusted to offer totally impartial information on matters British. What can be done? As noted, complaints on talk pages get nowhere, so perhaps the issue needs escalating to some higher body or other. After all, what's happening is completely at odds with one of the core Wikipedia principles. Do you have any thoughts on this? Van Speijk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC).

The Irish nationalists (and many have been at this for years and years) are experts at making every issue 'unionist vs nationalist', then demanding equal weight. It avoids all the policy issues, and is totally anti-sovereign too, but they will post day and night calling it a "no brainer" etc. The really clever element to this attack is that the very term "Unionist editor" doesn't mean a lot to most British people. I am British - why should I call myself "unionist"? The UK is simply a reality, and I live in it. For most people it's just about policy - but Ireland is a special case regarding policy, and a notorious No Go area on Wikipedia.

Consequently, most of the editors and admin who have normally challenged the 10-or-so-strong cabal of nationalist editors that is always around, are a disparate group who don't always get on in other areas. Some (at Northern Ireland/country) are even nationalists themselves (just anti-UK before anti-NI). When a few go missing, like has happened recently, the nationalists get their way everywhere. The nationalist editor RA has been even more effective since becoming an admin sadly it seems - I hoped it would go the other way (ie he would have to ease off a little), but he's been as single-minded as ever in his clearly lifelong pursuit. It's all he's ever done on Wikipedia, so it was incredibly optimistic to hope that he wouldn't somehow benefit from having the 'bit'. How easily he got it will come back and haunt Wikipedia if they don't sort solid general guidelines out (not stupid compromises, like at Derry/Londonderry). Over the next couple of years every active nationalist in the UK is going to come to Wikipedia to push their river: there has to be solid guidelines or it will be mayhem.

It can't be underestimated that most people avoid the UK/Ireland area like the plague - it's a running joke on Wikipedia. I think admin get an email suggesting they avoid it the moment they become one.

Yes, the nationalists are instinctively organised - and consequently Wikipedia is a more beneficial place for them, as it is for all negative people it could be argued. Which makes focusing on adapting policy and guidelines the key. It's tempting to keep highlighting the fact that most if not all 'UK/Ireland' issues are totally anti-policy, but frankly a simple Sovereignty guideline would solve it all. Everything - even British Isles. It's just getting people interested that's all. If you lose this kind of thing, someone like RA will get a biased paragraph and a long moratorium into IMOS in two seconds flat. To a number of them it really will be like the war won.

Sock farms on both sides do not help, but all the socks in the world couldn't get round a decent guideline. There are one or two genuine old-style "Unionists" around who are generally anti-guideline too, which doesn't help. In fact, I rarely encounter other Wikipedians who are as much into guidelines as I am. Encyclopedias really don't make sense to me without them. Wikipedia is like ancient Rome - it's laws are big, broad and often dramatically torturous, but they rarely aim to touch the common man. It's why I always wonder if Wikipedia really wants to help people, or rather insidiously help others to control them. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Matt, I understand your concerns as described on various talk pages of late, but I do think you are wasting your time with the current approach. The majority of other editors attracted to those pages are intractable in the extreme, they are informally organised and as such have a large majority. We need to take a different tack, and I'm wondering if this suggestion of taking Northern Irleand out of the WP:IMOS is a starting point. The more I think about it, the more it irritates me to think that editing policy on part of the United Kingdom is being dictated by editors from a foreign country, or at least who have allegiance to a foreign country. How to proceeed? That 'majority' will erupt with howls of protest at the suggestion, but if we can take it to some impartial area of Wikipedia we might make progress. Do you know where this should be? Van Speijk (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well there needs to be a UK MOS obviously. It's all a lot of work, because none of the various nationalists want it. Without a sovereignty guideline and a proper UK MOS structure Wikipedia will be battered over the next couple of years. It will be the biggest battleground for Scottish devolution, and it will be fought on each and every related page. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Someday NPoV will prevail over the Devolutionist PoV on those articles, but it's not going to be easy. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This is why I now very rarely edit Wikipedia. Adolf Hackney and his pathetic cabal are untouchable. — JonC^ॐ 13:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

A request for enforcement of the WP:TROUBLES arbitration has been filed against you. --RA (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you are informing me of this, and not the two people who began the action. Can I formally ask you if any emails of contact has been passed between you and Domer/Hackney on this matter? (I actually doubt there has - they are rude enough not to bother. But I'd like to ask). Matt Lewis (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hang on RA - you've started it! Why didn't you say so - And link to the beginning? You linked to Domer's Hackney's comments. I thought you said you would avoid pushing weight since you became an admin? If there is a case, why hasn't somebody uninvolved done this?

Btw, my question above still stands. (Dosn't really make sense - sorry) Matt Lewis (talk)

Your response is invited at WP:AE#Matt Lewis. Your recent edits have offered a lot of bait to any admin who was thinking of blocking you for WP:Tendentious editing. Please respond at AE so you can try to restore our confidence in your good faith. Your inquiry (above) into who instigated the report against you is probably the wrong idea. When you call another editor a slimeball or a troll you are probably announcing that you want a response. This is the response. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've simmered down a huge deal and am busy looking at consensus-broadening directions, and how to go about creating a worthwhile UK MOS. In fact - to be exact - I'm busy preparing for floorboards to be removed tomorrow in the freezing cold(!) But I get the point, and taken all together I have been a little OTT in the language I've used. This isn't a table in a pub, it's a communal endeavour (ideally at least). I think I've just been settling back in - it's been a bit bumpy perhaps because it's a moving train. I was even a bit OTT on Mohammad page recently, looking back. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply at WP:AE. Since there has been a question about your recent edits relating to WP:TROUBLES I'm leaving you a notice of the discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to The Troubles. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

- EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

UK MOS

Hi Matt. I’ve been following the discussion on IMOS for a while now but I didn’t want to get involved in that particular dispute. I just want to say that I think you are under a misapprehension about MOS and its sub-pages. You appear to think that it is some kind of controlling body, and that its appointed (or self-appointed) members make policy decisions regarding article content. It’s not. It’s a manual of style, and it is edited by people who are interested in editing it. There’s nothing exclusive about IMOS. Welsh, English, Australians or Pakistanis can edit it, and if their edits get a consensus they’ll be kept, but if not they’ll be reverted. If you set up a UK MOS as a one-man show, it won’t give you any control - you can be reverted there in the same way by the same people.

The fact is that people in the UK seemingly don’t feel the need for a MOS of their own. There was one tried five years ago (WP:MOSUK), but after some lively discussion on the talk page, it just folded. You see, the MOS itself is primarily geared towards the US and the UK, so the sub-pages are really for places that have variations on the US or UK norm. Questions like Derry/Londonderry would not be considered by most people in the UK as a matter of style (if they were considered by them at all). Those questions are of most interest to Northern Ireland people, but again the fact is that the NI WikiProject has been relatively inactive for several years.

I’m not saying that the idea of a UK MOS is a bad one in principle. You could always raise it at WP:UK and see if enough people were interested in collaborating to decide what matters required to be covered and to actually draw up such a manual. But if you’re primarily interested in it – and I suspect you are – as a platform for combatting "Irish nationalists", I would be willing to bet that it won’t get very far.

Please don't think that I am trying to get in a fight with you. I just wanted to offer some friendly advice. Scolaire (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You are doing here what you have always done Scolaire, and you know exactly how I would feel about "friendly advice" from you. I think you telling me how most people feel in the UK about Northern Island issues is just appalling. For a start I am British, you are not. You know exactly why I think places like the Northern Island Wikiproject are lifeless (not to mention the article for most of its life, despite RA's recent attempts to get it and its introduction to the more-protected area of Good Article status and beyond). Northern Ireland on Wikipedia saddens me like nothing else on Wikipedia, esp in sad news days like the last few days. Please - no more of these "friendly advice" messages, and I've had a few them over the years from you (coinciding with all your digs elsewhere, last seen at RA's Rfa). You won't get what you're looking for from this one, and I wish for no more. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Your perspective would be valuable

Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed in a significant way since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk)Veritycheck (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this. I will come back to it though fwiw. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Input to discussion

Your input is welcome on two discussions which may be of interest.

1. Proposed deletion (or renaming) of the following categories: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Politics_of_the_British_Isles
   1. Category:Politics of the British Isles
   2. Category:Political parties in the British Isles
   3. Category:Political movements of the British Isles
2. Proposed deletion of the following article [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles]
   1. Politics in the British Isles

Thanks, --KarlB (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, there are actively-biased nationalist admin in the area - I don't want to get involved right now. If you want to know, my general thoughts are thus:

Firstly it's all so hypocritical. Northern Ireland has to be consumed by the 'term' (what else do you call a politicised WikipediaTM rock?) "Ireland" at every opportunity or else watch it sunshine (and it's all politically now of course), yet Ireland (the country or the whole rock) must be free of the 'offensive' term "British Isles" - which is politically nothing at all.

1) In reality (ie not on Wikipedia) the term British Isles is used in all kinds of ways (context is everything with it I found), but all the major encyclopedia's I looked at said primarily that it is a scientific/geographical (what you will) term that can also include the Channel Islands. Unlike Wikipedia, they've wisely chosen a position - and a sensible one based on evidence too. People who don't like the term also don't like that fact (ie that the Channel Islands aren't specifically included): they want the term to be awkward and illogical (ie the archipelago plus extra bits), so they can keep promoting Atlantic Isles etc. (yes it really is that mad). Underneath it there is actually an unecyclopedic and rather-unpleasant attitude to the ancient word 'Britain' imo. But it up to you where the cookie crumbles.

There are also one or two 'Rule Britannia' nutcases around, which just makes debating it all so much harder. Most of the people on either side are socks or sock users imo. It's not entirely a "LAME" area though (the reason most admin give for looking away) - I believe that using Wikipedia to help break up the UK, whether claiming Northern Ireland or splitting Scotland and Wales, underpins everything for those who are most involved. And I find that quite serious myself.

2) The text saying that "many Irish" (or whatever it says now) are offended by the term is - on the whole - a rhetorical deception. Outside of the IRA etc, I can't see evidence of general public feeling this outside of the environs of Wikipedia. Those kind of general comments simply have to allude to the common man (ie not extremists), but there is just no real-life first-hand evidence, only theory or cases that flop when you look closely at them. It's been a couple of years for me now though, so they may just have scraped an example or two more out of the barrel for the 'list'. The simmering-for-years 'evidence list' contains a small but firm number of dime-a-dozen polemics - it really doens't matter who's published them. The first rule of Wikipedia is that you can find sources for anything. The second is that if you are not in a gang you will always be handicapped.

3) It's not true that Scottish nationalism is expressly resurgent (a background argument I caught scanning your talk page) - other factors fully describe the party-driven voting patterns, and the small spike of recent years is already going back down to it's usual rarely-changing level. The nationalists are resurgent in presence because they are campaigning for their referendum - the two are entirely different things. Also different things are voting for independence and voting for the SNP. The SNP acts as a normal political party, and gets voted in an out like the others for all the usual reasons: you can't just conflate votes for them with a desire for independence. People on Wikipedia do entirely misunderstand these points, esp if they personally wish to see the UK break up. Desire is everything here.

4) Wikipedia is at it's most vulnerable in political areas that involve nationalism. It's intrinsic alas, and connected to fundamental questions of identity - so extra care must be taken to ensure that weight is always adhered to. In other words it's always a bloody fight. Wikipedia must not promote anything, and sovereignty must be respected on principal - or what's the point? We may as well create a new Wikilingua language and dump English altogether if we are going to be this existential about it.

5) There are no doubt more points to be made, but Wikipedia is ultimately (it's pluses and unparalleled importance aside) a massive, massive waste of decent people's time. I can't see anyone posing much of an argument to that. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Golygathon

I've posted a reply to your question on meta. Hope this is satisfactory. --Rhyswynne (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you've found the original page unclear. Wikimedia UK has been supportive of this and other efforts to encourage participation in the Welsh Wikipedia, which obviously falls under our remit. We have already devoted a lot more time and resources to the mainly English-language work around Monmouthpedia, and intend to do other stuff that will be aimed at speakers of all and any languages in Wales in the future. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at your conversation with Harry Mitchell, I see you seem to think the Monmouth project is also focused on Welsh language work; it certainly isn't, and the two or more main people running it don't in fact speak Welsh. I can't really imagine where you picked up this idea. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

God help me.

Monmouthpedia is the first Wikipedia project to embrace a whole town—specifically, the Welsh town of Monmouth ( /ˈmɒnməθ/ MON-məth; Welsh: Trefynwy). The project aims to cover every single notable place, person, artefact, plant, animal and other things in Monmouth in as many languages as possible, but with a special focus on Welsh (my bold).

And there is also the 'real world' reasons of why Monmouth (of all places) was picked in the first place. But the real world is somewhere I live that alas few other people do around here. In fact, I would say that people are either way too much anchored in the 'real world' (or as 'real' as it is allowed to get in Wales these days by the anti-UK language-pushing lobby), or are so much into EverythingTM that they are barely in it at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, do tell! I thought it was because John Cummings, who comes from there, came up with the idea & took it to WMUK & the council. http://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categori:Trefynwy has 50 pages, Category:Monmouth, Wales 214. Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Blimey, you can't even shut up when an ANI admin has closed the debate and it's got, er, nowhere. I would reply, but unlike you, I obey the rules over there. Your last edit made you sound a bit of a dafty though tbh, I would suggest tone it down for a bit. You are comprehensively confused and over-reacting to me on this one, you need to take a major chill pill and try to distinguish between edits and between editors. I believe you that you and your buddy Andy have been fighting against numpties on Galloway, but your mistake is assuming that each new editor that arrives there is the same. I assure you I'm not. Now will you please calm down and enter into proper line-by-line and source-by-source reasoning instead of endless little snipes against me? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember the last time I edited the George Galloway page - you should assume nothing of the kind. I have no idea about Andy at all. You are lazy basically, aren't you?

Most people can see you for what you are James, it's just Galloway who they are not sure about. It's 'line by line' where you actually have nothing at all, which you cannot be stupid enough not to realise. Unless you are actually asking me to isolate each individual line with no connection to the lines next to it? Which of course you have done many times, looking like a total fool with each one. Whether you are just mainly inept or a completely full-on troll I don't know, but it's all unhidden bias, Original Reseach and loony conspiracy with you, and those who disagree get the full weight of Wikipedia's shittier tactics, ie winding people up even when you've got your own way.

Policy-wise you have been clueless for sure: you think you are allowed to "infer" whatever you like from pretty much any group of words, and you call blank reporting of unsupported speculation (even focusing on Galloway's denial) 'serious Gardian sources' that somehow back up your wild claims. You are a liar effectively at the end of the day, like a lot of people on here I suppose, if only to yourself. No part of any of this is a game to me I assure you: I have a hundred things to do elsewhere. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did assume without checking from your tone that you were a GG regular, so in that case, what brought you steaming in with your original lengthy half-page comment? Which included the laughably unsourcable "Galloway has always openly been a liberal Muslim-friendly Catholic who believes in the 'one Abrahamic God' - ie the God of Jews, Christians and Muslims.", LOL, amongst other trivia and emotional outbursts. Are you following my edits around? Drawn in by something I said or did somewhere else? I've been looking through your contrib history and I see you are busy in the UK and BI spaces - have I said something to annoy you there? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Look you utter ill-wit, when I said (for example) that I'd heard Galloway talk fairly recently of his Christianity on his radio show (now ended) I didn't need a source just to say that. I can simply say it, and add, if it's not clear, that I have no proof. You have to allow that - it's not trolling, it's just helpful for interested people who might actually respect my comments and what I have to say. And it's hardly trivial when you are literally claiming that Galloway is an atheistic 'Muslim' only pretending to be a Christian! But when you fuck around with Wikipedia itself, THEN you need a source (a proper one too), and when you fuck around trolling like you do, you need to be officially warned. And when you lie to people about the quality of various supposed 'sources', which are in reality nothing that you claim them to be - well that's when things get really bad, because otherwise possibly decent people end up saying and doing things that just make things worse.

As for saying I am "busy" in the British Isles area! You really are a lazy fool. I've not contributed there at all for a few years now as far as I can recall: maybe just a few days over Northern Ireland early this year (slightly related). Have I even dipped back into the BI debate? Maybe the odd reply on my own talk page to actually explain to someone why not. And you ask me if I'm following you around! You ought to have noticed that I've hardly been on Wikipedia the last few years: and every time I come back I meet some hyper-active loon like you. You people just get given so much space to disrupt. 'British Isles'/UK-IRE is overflowing with policy-abusing fruitbats, and there are so many socks on either side the last time I looked, that only a fool would waste too much time there. Once upon a time I broadly knew who the sock-creators were, as they are simply too persistent to deal with in such a policy-free area: In some sense it's a sectioned-off hotbed where they can all run free. When uninvolved admin pour their scorn on the whole (hardly unimportant) area, they are partly just admitting defeat. Funnily enough the debilitating serial sockfarmer 'Gold Heart' visited George Galloway yesterday to re-label him as 'Scots-Irish' - clearly when he saw you winding me up. As if I'd ever give even half a shit about that Gold Heart, honestly. It's just a case of completely-paranoid and always 'victimised' birds of a feather crapping along together. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's a lot to think about there. :) I wasn't accusing you of trolling, so I'm not sure why you raised that, just of being rather OTT in your original diatribe. You repeat the original wind-up about lying and effing around with WP, but I did neither - if you would just calm down and think a bit, I was proposing removal of a DEFINITIVE statement on the infobox, that he is Christian, when in fact a large quantity of widely published material casts doubt on this; you very very clearly have simply not got the difference between the removal of a definitive (due to lack of recent definitive sourcing) and the bland statement ("he is a Muslim") which I have never supported. Yes, I did call him a liar under pressure from you and Andy, which I regret now, because I actually quite like and even admire GG, however, unlike some, I am also not blind to his many well-publicised defects and can tell the difference between twaddle (his vague statements on religion) and reality (his marriages to Muslims, accusations of those around him, his own highly charged political statements about Islam, etc, etc) - I'm fine with you disagreeing but not with you making false allegations against me, when a large number of sources have subsequently been put forwards, not least from his third wife who denounced him to the Sun as having broken an Islamic marriage - things you seem to ignore. Oh dear, I can only say on the basis of the above, it's perhaps a relief that you don't pop in that often then. Try to give me warning next time you turn up to write a 5000 word denunciation of me LOL. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

God you are impossible. Son, I've never said he hasn't had an Islamic marriage - he's been through one twice for Christ's sake, as you've forced me to inform you over and over again. That doesn't make him a Muslim. The New Statesman is just wrong to question that (but they basically can't prove Khan's 'Islamic conversion ceremony' accusation can they), and they are on there own about it too: nobody else says it's impossible to do both, including all those Muslim people who say they see him as a Christian. The accusation is that he went to a "secret" (no less) Islamic conversion ceremony "around 2000" - but he simply denies it. That's 6 years after his first Muslim marriage, and 12 years before his recent one. And he's called himself (and has universally been seen as) a Catholic all the way through. You are so confused it's untrue. You are just not reading people's comments James, and you may even be the worse case of that syndrome I've seen. You really are utterly, utterly lazy. You really need to apply 'WP:AGF', because you just seem to assume that people who disagree with you somehow aren't worth reading.

As for my comment on British Isles - why exactly did you bring it up? You even suggested I was following you around from there! (So you must know the area to some degree). When you complain about the sometimes-detailed replies you get, it's like you don't realise what you've actually been saying, let alone the provocative manner you say it. You always come across like it's a shock to you when people respond to that kind of crap. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I am focusing on the content of your replies, not the insults in them. A less calm man than me could so easily take offence, lulz. :) On the Islamic marriages thing, you've changed your tune haven't you, because weren't you denying that there was any evidence that he'd had Islamic marriages? If not, no worries, I don't have time to read through the morass right now. If you aren't denying it, it's hard to see how that knowledge, combined with the denunciation of him by Wife #3 about breaching his Islamic marriage, and his own refusals to answer queries on it in recent years, whilst calling in public on Allah and comparing himself to good Muslims (all sourced) can't lead you to at least a modicum of doubt that he's still a Catholic other than in the vaguest possible sense of the term, eg, a Catholic that isn't anything like any kind of Catholic the Catholic church would accept as a Catholic? And that therefore in the infobox, putting "Religion - Catholic" is a bit of a stretch? Any thoughts?  :) Anyways, it's been fun. (stands back, waits for next avalanche of insults, lulz) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, you are not welcome on my talk page. If you don't stop this right now you'll be back at ANI. Frankly you are beyond the pale. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Up to you, you'll get nowhere. A tip though - if you want to avoid this kind of thing, stop using insults like "fuck around with Wikipedia", "you are a lazy fool", etc, as part of your arguing style and try and understand some basics about different types of content and editing rules. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You've pissed all over Wikipedia's editing rules, and your idea of 'different types of content' is an OR journalistic fantasy that's bringing Wikipedia slowly to its knees. Not one more comment here from you: you have nothing sensible or non-provocative to say. If I was the ANI-starting type you'd be brought to task just for that last attack on my understanding, as Wikipedia 'content rules' would actually get you in the end, combined will the endless trolling bullshit - which after a point amounts to nothing-less than lies surrounding and directly on a BLP. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Resp

HighKing's history on Wikipedia

My initial reaction was "Go boil yer head" (or something similar) to your post at the British Isles talk page. A long ranty passive-aggressive insulting name-calling post that is vague and non-specific. Ahem. Sorry. But it looks to me like you were simple winding up for a row and trying to provoke. Either that or rabble-rouse some nationalistic crusade against the injustices against the British/Irish/etc, or whatever. I wrote two responses, diluting my reaction each time, but realized I was simply responding to the insults and not to the points you buried in your post. Since we've interacted before, I know that often a very clever and insightful post from you is sometimes buried in a rant. If I tried to summarize, you're saying that an iron-stiff definition that always includes the Channel Islands is not correct because in real-life use this is not the case. Well, I agree to that point, even taking into account that some writers haven't a clue that there are difference (as nicely documented by the various Euler diagrams). So what's the beef exactly? --HighKing (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Vague and non-specific! You are a terror HK. You're a real bull-whipper really, and your definition of 'rant' is anything actually explanatory that also criticises you. You really need to read what I wrote again, because you haven't summarised it fairly at all. Here's a link before it's scroll-archived by you or RA and gone the way of the countless similar wrong-side discussions in this area. I'm not going to repeat any of it here, as apart from anything I just don't have the time.

I'll respond to this silly comment though: What the actual amount of revised Euler diagrams that have been re-drawn for Wikipedia show us (and there's not been that many) is nothing but the presence of the silly politics that keeps being forced in: the Channel Islands are continually being forced-into the British Isles unequivocally (ever since RA first decided that should be the case, years ago when he was Sony Youth) - and the only English Euler diagram it remains correctly 'in and out of' now (apart from mine) also dots a line around the Republic of Ireland, labelling it as contested! It's an interesting political slant I suppose - allow the Channel Islands to be correctly shown as an alternate-definition, as long as the ROI is shown as optional too! The Russian translator of the only accurate Euler diagram there currently is on Wikipedia, simply had the good sense to solidify the ROI line on that particular Euler and leave the silly political statement out. If someone copied that into English and put it into the three 'British Isles' articles (that is; BI, BI Terminology of, and BI Naming Dispute) we'd have the perfect Euler - until you or RA removed them all that is. Yes - if anyone is reading, Wikipedia has three British Isles articles, and a hanger-load of other non-mainspace pages too. None of these different Eulers simply demonstrate 'the innocent lack of knowledge in the area' HK you little devil you, especially the ones fashioned by RA, who is not innocent or uninformed about anything in this area. But you know that's my opinion because I said it yesterday, and I've said it no-doubt a few times before. So why make me repeat it I wonder?

But - hold on though - while you are here: I popped in to look at the BI 'debate' a year or two ago (well probably at least a couple of years by now - how time flies), and though I didn't have the time to contribute anything (nor no-doubt the will), I definitely remember getting a fairly strong whiff of you being spotted using a sock puppet at some point, and kind-of getting away with it? I just caught the scent as I remember, but it was quite a strong one.

Did you? For me you see time passing doesn't seem to matter so much on a topic where the clock has always been stopped. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup, even more passive-aggressive insults and back handed insults. Matt, seriously, how am I supposed to react when your response meanders from inferred insult to inferred misbehaviour? If you've a beef with RA, don't drag me into it, nothing to do with me (unless this is the "strong whiff" you're trying to infer). The sock thing - yes, a few years back an account "popaice" was used to edit articles in order to avoid the intense debate that accompanied my edits. That account made 5 edits. You can see the details at the SPI report page, it's public knowledge. As to the "politics" of whether the CI are included or not in the BI "definition" - my stance is fairly simple - the "British Isles" is a geographic term for the archipelago in question. It is not a collective political term for the various countries and territories. "Britain and Ireland" can be both a geographic term *and* a political term, and it's a smaller area than "British Isles. That's it really. If you're offended by that opinion, good luck to you. And as you know, I'm always happy to argue my point but I'll concede just as readily if someone can provide something for me to read by way of a reference or citation. --HighKing (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

So you were caught creating a sock account to avoid debate [4]? 5 edits until found. I've followed your lead, and it looks like the tending admin Amalthea accepted your arguments by email and in private! So much for an open Wikipedia. You really do have a charmed life HighKing, especially in that the Levenboy sockfarm reported you, and just ended up getting a latest block himself. Shame on all the Wikipedia admin involved for being so one-sided and shallow. I would hardly call this 'public knowledge' - I only ever caught the smallest hint, and didn't notice any investigation page. And shame on whoever else stood aside too frankly. Well then I would say that you must have socked before that too (there were so many obvious sock accounts around): you were and I'm sure still are simply the foremost (if not the only) WP:SPA completely-committed to removing instances of 'British Isles' from Wikipedia, so were always the most obvious candidate for socking on the 'anti-BI' side. You just always maintained the benefit of the doubt. If I was around I'd have looked very deeply for more, that's for sure, and I would NOT have let you off the hook.

Regarding your retaliation above, you don't appear to know what "passive aggressive" actually entails, just like you never appeared to quite know what "ad hominem" properly entailed (remember your endlessly-dealt miss-spelt Warning templates as Bardcom, one of which originally eventually got me my first block on Wikipedia?). I used to give you far too much respect (for never socking mainly), and you used to pander to that continually - yet if the occasion to comment on me ever arose, you only ever gave me the most damningly mixed/faint praise in return: and that was always a disappointment to me. I used to defend your typically-silly position on a number occasions - especially your right to be a single-purpose account and to make 'British Isles' a fairly-used term. I always tried to work with you on creating guidelines I don't think that you ever had any intention of allowing.

No - I'm not "passive aggressive" HighKing, I'm a very direct critic of you who is, as always, speaking openly and supplying reasons. That is neither 'passive aggressive' nor 'ad hominem'. You are not an admin, and I'd have no need to be circumspect with you in any way at all. I'd advise you not to speak for anyone else I may refer to on occasion. I'm certainly not going to use any anti-policy language that will get my blocked, so you can give up on pushing for more of that. You don't have (and frankly never have had) a real leg to stand on. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Go boil yer head Matt. Actually - more than than, fuck you! That's really flinging the shit too much and you've crossed the line. So what other "sock" accounts are you thinking of? Go on, name them if you are to have any shred of credibility. I've never socked since then (or before then) and barring that incident I've never had more than one account. I socked simply (and naively) because I had lost faith in the "system" and it seemed like socking was how to "win" an argument. I've learned a lot since. Levenboy, in my opinion and very obviously from his behaviour and other evidence, was part of a sock farm involving more than 20 socking accounts. Of course you never condemned those people. I also worked tirelessly on the guidelines - and go check and you'll find that were actually scuppered by the sock farm and nobody else. So fuck you and your accusations. Fuck you and your back-handed insults about me being a sock, or being an SPA, or not working in good faith, or whatever else you want to think or say. Your trolling for a reaction, so congratulations, you got one. --HighKing (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a couple more things. I've always tried to be open and honest with those that want to engage openly and honestly, in a cooperative spirit. That used to include you. And that was even when I was dealing with a sock. I've always tried to avoid making personal comments, haven't always succeeded, but a *lot* less than your average editor. And a lot less that the shit you've tried to get to stick over the past 24 hours. I pay attention to usage of the term "British Isles" and yes, you may disagree with some of my edits - that's your choice - but I've always been willing to engage/discuss/explain/provide refs/whatever without resorting to name-calling or tantrums (unlike some). But if what you've written above is what you *really* think (and thank you for enlightening me), then I reiterate the Fuck you sentiment. I can see now that I was completely fooled. Won't happen again when you're involved. --HighKing (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Will you stop saying that I've not been clear with you - it's just games, games, games. Have you been stuck at age 14 or something all these 6 or 7 years? I don't think you are still young in the mind, I think you are genuinely manipulative.

It's not just the sockpuppetry that's wrong here you see HighKing (you clearly emailed your way out of that one), it's using highly-biased Original Research and any number of other deception-based policy infringements given your incredible history: the sock edits themselves represent infringements. For some reason Amalthea (the sock incident admin) didn't take that side into account: you must have played a blinder by email regarding the 'opposing' fleets of British socks, and how desperate they made you feel. I bet it was an epic sob story. What Amalthea clearly didn't know was that those other socks only existed because of your crazy mission of eradicate 'British Isles' from Wikipedia, and everyone involved was subject to the taskforce at that point anyway (sock, IP or otherwise) – so the other 'opposing sockpuppets' had nothing to do with your own socking at all. You were simply bypassing the British Isles taskforce by removing valid reference-held geographical uses of the term that the taskforce rules would said were OK. And you have the gall now to claim how much you supported the taskforce! And that your decision to sock and bypass the taskforce was "naivety” too (after what - 5 years as Bardcom then as HighKing and being officially told what can and can't go?)! This is actiually a great example of why admin shouldn't use email to discuss these kind of cases with the offender, it just isn't wise, open or fair.

This sockpuppetry of yours made a fool out of every single person who's taken their time to work with you on the BI taskforce or otherwise, and IMO it could have only been because of your interaction over some other Ireland-connected issue (Derry or the like - ie the only other things you touch on WP) that the various people around you actually let you get away with it. And yet all you've done is what Wikipedia currently does a daily level imo - treat faceless people like work dogs. It seems to me that the pipe of content is wide-open and indiscriminate, and the factory-line of masses are here to shovel up the perpetual waste that keeps pumping through. People like HK get their POV-shovelling hushed up via email (WP is nothing but kissy kissy), and shoveller-dogs like me get the eventual blocks or just blow out. It's unbelievable that you've got away with that sock after all you'd previously done to waste decent people's time over literally years, it really is. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Using the sock is not something I'm proud of or would do again. There was no sob story either by email, I simply stated that I created the account to avoid the wikistalking and harassment of Mister Flash and MidnightBlueMan. There's only a fraction of the abuse by those accounts (and Hackneyhound) over the years been uncovered, but interesting that you think that's A-OK, so long as they agree with your world view, but you write such invective based on 5 edits? If I thought you were actually genuinely interested, I'd forward you a copy of the email, but under the circumstances I can see you'd prefer not to have any actual facts or details that would get in the way of your latest hate-filled imagination-fuelled conspiracy theory. I regret getting involved in this discussion. Genuinely. Think what you want I suppose, at least now your mask has slipped and I can see what you're really thinking rather than the charade you've been on for the past years. I won't be interacting here any more. --HighKing (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC

Why don't you copy the email here? These things should always be above-board, and I cannot imagine how it could not be a sobstory frankly - or why not talk with the admin on a talk page like everyone else on Wikipedia does? Just now you claim you've been repeatedly "abused" - Christ do you know what real 'abuse' actually is?? They just stopped you removing a mostly-fine term from Wikipedia ffs. I could very easily argue that you've "abused" me by wasting countless hours of my time, not to mention Wikipedia's in general. Everything is always against you, and you are always right Highking. It's covetous nationalism for you - it's the worse thing in the world bar none. The start for me was that I simply couldn't edit Wikipedia because of the term 'British Isles': I'd never even thought about it until then.

Email is the place for sensitive information, or for hiding things people don't want others to hear. The outcome of your email was that you were completely let off, which was totally unacceptable given your history. You strive to get others into trouble, then you get off yourself when you sock. Certainly you hid from the admin that you were attempting to bypass a taskforce actually set up to stop this kind of thing. You just weren't happy with the restrictions of the taskforce, and that is simply down to your ridiculous prejudice against an age-old term. Behind that is a desire to unify Ireland etc, and the usual bubbling-under anti-British claptrap. It just gets me down. I always defended you from the Britsockman, but he simply would not be here if it wasn't for your stupid nonsense. All you had to do was remove any extreme or wrong use of the term, but you made it a life obsession to remove all instances, and give a WARNING to everyone who tried to stop you. Britsockman is a monster entirely of your own making, and as far as I can see he's only ever reacted to your obsessions - equally sad though that may be in itself. When he eventually started to add the term into Wikipedia (rather than just defend it), it was almost frankly what you deserved - I mean what did you expect for pete's sake? You've behaved like an utterly obsessive nutcase for years. I still can't believe you only socked the once (and so late in the day too - most instances of 'British Isles' were removed by that point), but even if it was just the once (and until you got caught - "only 5 edits" means nothing to me) - it takes away any credibility you ever had for me, and that was precious little as it was. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

New Wales Coast Path WikiProject

I see you're a member of WikiProject Wales and have contributed to Welsh articles. There's a new project, Llwybrau Byw!|Living Paths! under development which you might be able to contribute to. Lonely Planet rated the coast of Wales "the best region on Earth" in 2012, yet there is a very low number of articles on the history and culture of places along the Coastal Path and the many and various activities and attractions. This promises to be an exciting project as it gathers momentum with many Users joining in. Let's make this WikiProject, like the path itself, the best on earth! Cymrodor (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the "best on earth." For the best "ethnic group" on earth. From what I've already seen I'm afraid to look.

Thanks for contacting me 1-day back after years out though. How did you know? Is it some code I wonder? That's a bit weird too. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Look at the date! 10 September 2013 — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 19:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Sorry. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Welsh people

I'm tempted to remove your diatribe as, mostly, irrelevant to the article, and completely failing to respond to my point. I won't, but others might. I'm certainly not going to respond to it, though. Please try and keep to the point, rather than going off on a rant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think you have the right to remove my comment? I think you actually do. It dealt with nothing but the three points at hand: Welsh "ethnicity" (of all words), Bertrand Russell's origins, and the content of mine you so crudely removed. I'm entitled to discuss ALL of that. My content edit on the Welsh language merely balanced the content that was already in the introduction (which actually hangs on the Welsh language): but typically you want to censor me giving the background information for my edit. I don't know how you have the gall to label an edit such as mine, "Remove POV". I get angry because I find it immediately aggressive (whether passive in any way or not) and just plain wrong.

And in any case, people here need to hear what I have to say about a few things. I think I've been away far too long frankly. I scarcely dare look at anything to do with Scotland (and rarely have). Those of you who are so desperate to break up the UK must be so apprehensive about this September. All I've ever cared about here is the fairness, balance and quality of the encyclopedia: nothing outside of it has ever directed my editing. I'd like to hear you say that yourself. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I like the your proposed into. It covers well that Wales does not have a single ethnicity as the language and culture are different in the north and the south. (You just just need to correct it's -> to its). I know what you mean about the POV regarding English and British. The nationality of the UK is still British, but describe somebody that way and it will often be changed, even if their notability derives from a British position. Describing me as English is dubious, I was born in England and have always lived here but have ancestors from all across the British Isles, (are we allowed to use that term?). Good luck with the changes, but nationalists cause lots of wiki-disputes. Bevo74 (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Matt - if you expect anyone to read and act on this, you should really remember to sign your posts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You know, instead of that needless comment there, you could actually have said something on the ANI and help avoid a whole load of crap. Have you seen what Dai has now written?! That's how he sees Wikipedia, and I think we both know why. Dai's no-doubt always gotten his way in eventually demoting (or removing reference to) Britain, and over-promoting Wales or UK-independence in some way. But it's been a bit of an eye-opener lately hasn't it? Don't you ever wonder why I get so angry here? I'm the model of patience when I'm not. I (and I think we all) know HighKing has been creating the odd sock for years for example - there are actually lots of things I ultimately just leave alone, including eventually the entire encyclopedia.

You and I should always have been two people who could easily work with each other, and I think the reason we haven't is down to opinions that should never be part of Wikipedia at all. You've ultimately spoilt people like Dai in the past Gh - you and one or two other people who really should know better. Why don't we (ie those who can) stop all this nonsense, and focus on making this encyclopedia something a serious person would actually like to read? Matt Lewis (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I've no interest in debating these points with either you or Dai, or in wasting anyone's time at ANI. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No. And you are curt with me whenever I make an edit too: "removing POV" is all I ever seem to get, when usually I've just not made enough refs. I constantly find those minimalist edit-notes of yours provocative ghmyrtle - you are hearing that here. Simply saying "POV" the way you often do fully equals written crticism. You could take a lesson from Snowded, who when he doesn't like an edit, tends to say something like "take it to talk".

You've already missed your opportunity of saving people's time at ANI haven't you - you chose to be needlessly sarcastic here instead. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You have as long as it takes me to make a err report to self revert ----Snowded ^TALK 19:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This was fully settled last night. All you've done it stir things up, and I think that you don't even agree with the current edit! (ie you know it's factually incorrect Original Research, non-logical, non-policy, and totally misleading and politically loaded too). You've refused to offer your opinion on it: so how can you say "talk"? Policy comes first Snowded, or there is no sense in this place at all. It's not me who's abusing 3RR here - there are plenty of ways to abuse that. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wales. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You will learn that doing that is just rude I'm afraid. I simply replaced my conisidered text with the additional 'talk page' discussion too. You have made no approach to me at all other than to do this. (I've never spoken to you actually). Matt Lewis (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I really do have to go now, but I reverted you as it was clearly bullying. No reasons given for your actions, and a anticipating 'Warning' given first. You can't do that. If I get a block I get a block. I put hours into his, and I deserve some basic respect. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't intend the warning as a person attack, and I apologise that you interpreted it that way. I realise your frustration, however policy's clear. I'm not going patronise you, as you're probably well aware of WP:CONSENSUS. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@Matt: Please don't leave messages to other people on my talk page. You can message me there by all means, but not messages to others. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this a 'warning' too? I don't get why you've placed it here. Did you really think I could allow his comment to pass by? He's clearly calling me a liar about the hours I work, and nobody would let stand would they? You should just delete it all ffs as the guy is clearly trolling. But it seems you think I'm a bullshitter too, and it seems to me that you treated and reverted in the 'dismissive' way you do because you've seen me as that kind of person for a long, long time. Is that actually true? This is where and why Wikipedia needs the dreaded WP:AGF isn't it? Politics aside, it always seems to me that you will not give me AGF on any level anymore, and when you see me around you treat me like the IP of a known sock. It's just not right, and it's not 'policy' either.

Are you really saying what I wrote on your talkpage about my life was untrue? The only people who work '24/7' in Britain are carers. He was a real fool taking the mick out someone saying that: I went easy on him calling him a doughnut. He's not anywhere near as clever as he thinks he is that guy. People who wade in to complex and heated disputes dropping gnomic comments from on high rarely are. Do you remember when Deacon of Pnepetism suddenly came out of the ether and tried something similar in a heated dispute at United Kingdom? (about the 'degree' in which the Northern Ireland "troubles" should be connected to the intro ffs). He ended up having to apologise. It just winds people up, so please don't encourage him. Regarding my 'personal life' comment on your talk page, I've had that type of comment left on my my own talk when it clearly has been a drunken fantasy (from a known sock-maker who's since been banned but is no-doubt still around) - all I did was sympathise then a bit-later delete it. You put up a picture of a troll and write this. Come one, that just makes me think you are telling me I'm full of shit too doesn't it? Unless you think the tool holds some sway (Jesus I hope he doesn't), you can easily delete the whole thing. It's your talk page, as you say. I did require the right to a direct reply though, anyone would.

Why is it so bad between us? Can't you see that when I'm angry with you I always just react to you? We did seem to get on a long time ago, but you just started calling edits/suggestions of mine for balanced content "POV", and I realised that was all in the same tortured denoting-British, or British-first, or British replacing areas. It's all gone down the pan since then. Treat people as equals and with respect, and they will act in kind to you. You seem to treat me with Olympian disdain at times.

Do you know, I think I'd even accept some kind of combined mediation between us. I really find it that bad at times, and I'm sure you cannot enjoy it too. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

To suggest that you might be over-reacting is putting it mildly. Martin left a comment to me on my talk page, which is fine. You then responded to him on my talk page - again in a somewhat over-the-top manner - which is not fine at all. It would have been OK if it was just gentle banter, but clearly it wasn't. If you want to raise a serious issue with him, it's good etiquette to do it on his talk page, not mine. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Piss off myrtle, you responded by sticking up a picture of a troll then came here. You can scrub that idea of mediation, you're just a tosser. You are enormously full of shit. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not "[stick] up a picture of a troll". I responded to Martin's use of the word by (jokingly - as he and I sometimes do) linking to an article. Not the same thing at all, so please don't misrepresent me. I'll strike out that link, if it's really important to you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you fully realise half the time what you actually do say and do. You just do what you do and everything else scrolls out of view: the wiki way in these miserable areas. You began the above by saying his comment on your talk was fine. Can you think of one single Wikipedian who wouldn't want to respond to it? You treat me like a slave sometimes, getting to do things and endlessly repeat things that wouldn't get away with with anyone else on Wikipedia. It's a terrible example to Daicaragos as much anything - just look how far he takes that attitude with me.

You don't have to strike anything, just delete it all like I did with Dai's section below. Once it's read and seen it's read and seen. What is it with all this striking nonsense? It it the new thing on Wikipedia now: never delete anything? The whole interaction has no use to this encyclopedia at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's just a personal thing - I don't like deleting stuff from my talk page unless it's just admin notices or obvious vandalism. It helps to remind me of previous conversations. That's all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe strike it then, or and-archive it or something. It's up to you as it's your talk. We're going out now, I'll be back tonight. Watchlists are watchlists unfortunately: we look at them and see this stuff. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

At least you could check my user page, and see where I do live!! As a general point, can you please stay on-topic on article talk pages? If you must have a pop at me or others personally, you can do it on my talk page. I may not choose to respond, of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean like your preceding edit: putting "Credibility" in small type on Wales talk here? Especially after all the small-type crap we had on your talk page - I hope you do find my comments there 'credible' by the way. It's not easy always 'appearing' as pure as the driven snow is it? All your various actions from the initial revert have been ill-advised all the way, which Dai will find out if and when he tries what we both know he most likely will at some point.

So you've moved to the 'Wikipedia town' of Monmouthshire in Wales? Double shame on you then frankly. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I really think that you sometimes confuse me with someone else. I've lived here for 21 years. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you told me once years ago that you were not Welsh and you lived in England? Perhaps it was just the former and I assumed the latter. I felt certain of it though. I definitely don't confuse you with any one else. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You've completely lost me now. Did you mean to duplicate my paragraph, and your comment to Martin? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate what? I don't see it. If I've made an obvious text-duplication mistake just delete it. Can you explain to me anything you see wrong with this (it's a draft in the current style):

The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity. Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?". Respondents were instructed to "tick all that apply" from a list of options that included Welsh. 80% of respondents chose to tick one option only, with 20% ticking two or more options. 57.5% of respondents exclusively ticked Welsh, 7.1% ticked both Welsh and British, and 16.9% exclusively ticked British. A further 2.3% of the respondents ticked British with one or more options other than Welsh. 11.2% of the respondents exclusively ticked English. 8% of respondents did not indicate one of Welsh, English, Scottish, Northern Irish or British.

We need the 80:20 ratio as it makes sense of the new multi-option question. I used "exclusively" before the word "ticked" so avoid the issues with saying things like "exclusively British" and "stated" or even "indicated", which is just a weaselly version of the same thing. It's the only fair way I can think of doing it in this summarising style. The reader can then decide to take your on my interpretation of why the question was actually about - clearly we couldn't disagree more about that. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You removed some of the duplication here, and I've now removed the rest - it seemed pointless to me. I'm not going to start another discussion on content with you here - if you want to discuss this rewrite, you'll have to raise it there I'm afraid. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You won't ever say what's wrong with it (apart from over superficial things) because nothing is wrong with it on a broad data-presenting basis. It removes the needless, contentious and non-policy 'Original Research' areas, and hence it removes all your hideous nationalist bias. So you just will not allow it. You just want at-any-cost to make it falsely appear to wikipedia's readers that '74% of Welsh do not feel British', even though you know that much more than that actually do feel British. As far as the census (and the respondents) are concerned they put "British" when they put "Welsh", just as they put "Welsh" when they put "British". You are totally abusing the 2011 census, what it was intended for! You are insisting that each one is a "sole identity". That is total bullshit.

The 2011 English/Wales census was not a test of Britishness. The term 'British' was mutually inclusive all the way, just as it was throughout 2001. It was never presented as a separate identity. It only asked for "your national identity", and it just provided people with the extra boxes to describe it, which they asked for after 2001 (when the English and Welsh realised the Scot's could by they couldn't - it was seen as silly and unfair). But that was it. In interpreting the data, you are drawing all kinds of crazy conclusions: like that people who put Welsh intended to say they do not feel British etc! IT WASN'T A POLL ON THAT, AND NOBODY EVER SAID IT WAS.

It was just a very, very simple question to work out how many people have a 'British national identity' vs 'British citizenship'. It was just so simply-put that it effectively became open to this kind of abuse. And you are abusing the actual statistics they released too - you are falsely-reading and developing a column-heading in a spreadsheet FFS. But all you want to do is bring down the UK. It's like online terrorism, and you just never stop in this area, from Northern Ireland not being allowed to be a "country" while Wales, England and Scotland always have to be at any cost (no need to put 'UK' here - move along). To 'Londonderry' being less equal to 'Derry'. To over-representating 'the Troubles' whenever it's possible to do so (the UK introduction). To insisting that the 'Welsh' must be a 'people', an 'ethnic group', a 'nation' and 'indigenous' all in one over-loaded first line (at Welsh People), while at the same time arguing that historical people who've never called themselves 'Welsh' can still be classed as Welsh because they were born here! I'm just sick and tired of it all. You won't bend on anything even slightly, and it's all totally against that is supposed to be the values of this place, leaving stinking comments on my 'poor prose' in discussion pages instead of just improving improved content like you are supposed to. And not least reverting me as soon as you see me too (usually as "REMOVING POV"), like I'm a known disruptive IP. I find it ALL disgusting. Keep your horrible nationalism away from Wales. We are around 80-90% British as a whole population (ie including all non-Welsh non-British too), and we as a nation don't need this horrible divisive, disruptive hate. It's nothing but destructive. That's an off Wiki appeal to all you creepy nationalists. Stop attempting to smash us all up and leave us to be Welsh in peace. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Matt - disagreeing with a few people about the wording of a pretty obscure paragraph buried in a WP article is not "like online terrorism". Can you please withdraw that statement, and try to be a bit more civil, and calm? Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's only the blindingly-obvious lack of truth behind it that's keeping it out of the introduction. This false interpretation of a couple of cherry-picked spreadsheet columns is clearly socially offensive (it's only your politics that stops you from personally seeing it), and for me it distills so much of what is wrong with Wikipedia. I also find the UK-based nationalism on Wikipedia so removed from real-world opinion that I very much see it as the 'online' version of seriously attacking my nation and country: which is both Wales and Britain interchangeably, just like the census compilers see it.

It is certainly true that information isn't knowledge, but you (and others like you here) develop it into 'fact'. That supposed fact becomes knowledge, and knowledge is power, just as they say. Transferable knowledge is potent, whether it's based on fact or not. And God knows how much the pen is mightier than the sword. One man's terrorist is another man's 'freedom fighter' is it not? Three common aphorisms, timeless for a reason. Here's one of my own: nationalism absolves all, and unpopular nationalism requires any means. How about another? Nationalism enclouds the mind. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

3rr report

Made here ----Snowded ^TALK 20:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You've breached today the voluntary restriction undertaken at AN3 to not edit the talk page (as well as the article) for 7 days. Will you self-rv your post? DeCausa (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Matt, I've blocked your account for 24 hours since with this edit you violated the restriction which you had accepted in the AN3 discussion. You had agreed not to edit the Wales article or its talk page for seven days. So I'm imposing the original 3RR block that the restriction was intending to avoid. See WP:GAB if you wish to appeal the block. Your talk comments suggest a high degree of confidence that your edit warring was correct and everyone else was wrong ("I feel policy beats 3RR in this regard"). Your editing restriction from Wales and Talk:Wales is still in effect and it lasts until 20:48 on 9 March. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this just to do with editing the article? I didn't get the talk page bit, though I was planning to have a break from it as I said (though I was certainly planning to look back at it too). There is actually no "everyone else" about this - my point of issue has been agreed on now. I actually do consider this a 'BLP' issue too as it happens: a biography of living people. The point of issue was about Welsh people, of which I'm one. What it said on St David's day was embarrassing for the whole of Wikipedia, and it still says it too. Shame on you all. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not about the truth" alright. I don't don't know how you people sleep at night. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elegant Slumming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"the Celtic Cabal is like no other cabal on Wikipedia: They have an iron (age) grip.... "

"the Celtic Cabal is like no other cabal on Wikipedia: They have an iron (age) grip on this place. "

That's an interesting observation that you made on the Wiki Celtic page. My experience is exactly the same. For three years on and off I've tried to inject some objectivity and critical historical facts into the Wiki pages about the Scots Language but have been repeatedly been blocked, deleted and falsely accused of sock puppetry etc by the page editor who goes by the name of Mutt Lunker. Having spent many hundreds of hours researching the subject it is quite clear that the purported history (and even existance) of a Scots Language as reported on Wikipedia is (mostly ) 20th century nationalist-inspired bull****. I find such blatant 'political' censorship of the historical facts quite breathtaking. You might enjoy an encounter with M Lunker. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.3.199 (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm Delta13C. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Naturopathy, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Delta13C (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

January? Oh for God's sake.

Look if you don't respond to me sensibly here and apologise, I promise to you that I will report you for doing this. It's simply a matter of principle. I made ONE SINGLE EDIT to an article - a very good one - and someone (not even you so why are you here?) quite-antagonistically reverted it without properly explaining why. And you have effectively given me a low-key Warning. And you too have not shown me where and why. I simply re-worded a very-biased paragraph to be a little less obviously biased. The only link you have given me is "Referencing for beginners"! I joined this place 10 years ago - don't you realise that you aren't supposed to treat people like that?

Treating a sole edit like mine with an effective 'date warning' is just not acceptible, and it seems to happen too much. People like you clearly need to be told by some real authority not to do this to people, so unless you apologise I will see you at ANI when I have the time. People like you leave just leave a stink - don't you realise that? You seem to have no idea how rude and debilitating it is. It's totally unproductive for the encyclopedia. You have to realise that you are efectively just a self-appointed 'patroller' in an area you personally feel strongly about. You are NOT an admin. And you don't make the rules.

You may also need to be told about encyclopedic standards, and how Wikipedia differs from the various places it draws its information from. And you (and your mate) are supposed to improve the obvious improving edits too, not auto-revert them (use a FACT tag perhaps? Though where exactly?). Auto-reverting obvious improvement staggers flow and general progress. It hinders Wikipedia.

I can assure you I have NO biased position in this area, but it's a controversial subject obviously. Now can you, with hand on heart, say the same yourself? I notice on your Talk page that you talk about caring only about "scientific consensus" in this area. But the current intro is not scientific at all - it's illogical, unweighted and very-very obviously biased. How is that representitive of science? And I see no evidence of 'scientific consensus' that Naturopathy is seen as a singular discipline either. It doesn't make sense. Herbalism and homeopathy are usually quite different things - they may sometimes converge, but you have no real right to basically state that 'it's all the same shit'. And where is the consensus that Naturopaths avoid surgery and drugs?! None of the current intro makes sense as it stands. All I did was reword some of it - I took nothing away from it at all. I kept all of your negative claims etc. The changes that I made didn't need a new reference did it? I simply made what was already there a lot less biased-sounding.

Wikipedia is supposed to use weighted balance (please remember that I said 'weighted' if you reply), rather than take scientific 'sides' anyway - ie WP is not supposed to be about towing to any outside consensus anyway, however wrong or right that might be (ie the Truth). It should mention consensus when it is there, but not tow to it. So you seem to have got that side of Policy wrong as well. As I've said, Naturopathy clearly covers a group of different things anyway, so it's just silly to state that "Naturopathy is ineffective." whatever backs that up as a reliable source. Contexts always differ and you don't need to put it like that at all. It's not suddenly up to other people to 'counter-quote' your unbalanced statements (an old Wikipedia gut-shot, because it can be almost-impossible to find non-connected positive effective-counter-statements like that! People just don't record life in that way.) - this is all about creating balanced encyclopedic text. That's it. Isn't it?

'Thank you'

Matt Lewis (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)