User talk:Matt Lewis/Archive 6

Your edits to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Keith D 21:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't get excitied, this was Wikipedias error! (I had the edit window open since earlier today). It posted over the last few entries when I finally entered it. So why jump in and 'warning1' me? How about some poise and politeness instead of waving a stick? Honestly! I'm one of the good guys. --Matt Lewis 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the warning - the loss of sections of the page looked like vandalism. My edit to the page also failed to achieve what I intended. Now you have re-added your comments I can see what was intended and withdraw the warning. Keith D 22:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Opposing the Guideline on UK Nationality naming

Matt, I think your contributions to the talk page have been very reasoned, despite the passion. MurphiaMan 08:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. --Matt Lewis 09:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

British Isles

• Matt, please keep the discussion on topic and avoid the use of emotive terms designed to incite arguments. Please keep your tone civil - you comment of keep looking down sailor borders on a personal attack. I have no personal beef with you, but I can't help but feel that because you have been passionate about your POV for so long, you are very aggressive and antagonistic in your replies, and reading insults and challenges into comments where none are intended. And sure, one or two people appear to deliberately try to goad everyone into an argument, but the rest of us can avoid it... Bardcom (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, well I initially thought your pretty calm and civil - but after you strongly took the mick out of my atlas example (which was perfectly reasonable surely) I thought you were joining in the silly games, and playing at being civil as a wind-up! - sorry if I got it wrong. You began with "Where do I start?" and went on to suggest that all my arguments were illogical and foolish! Lots of people play games on WP - sometimes I ignore them - sometimes I hit them head on. It's only the argument that matters to me, and usually only because it has some kind of personal importance. Some people jump from between being very agressive and OTT, into sudden lightheartedness - and often they incite, you are right. Whatever I am like myself, at least myself I keep hold of everyone's points (when people spend all of 2 seconds 'reading' my comments/replies is the really frustrating thing to me!). My Land ahoyyy/"sailor" comment was just supposed to be a 'flat earth' reference, btw (to show how much I find the removal of "British Isles" cultish and obscure) - it don't know if it sounded like anything else! (sorry if it did though!) --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks Matt. Yeah, the sailor comment is mostly harmless when you put it into that context :-) Bardcom (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the sailor comment is harmless, the first two sentences of this edit are not acceptable behaviour. Please don't repeat it. Waggers (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How rude, sanctimonious, and provocative is all that? I must assume you followed the conversation that provoked my "dimwit" comment? Provocation is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and the whole picture is considered at arbitration. I have since been called a "moron" by that person, and the deliberately-repeated offending comment that lead to my "repetition of a dim-wit" reaction has been childishly repeated again since (and without any hint of subtlety). Do you think that is acceptable behaviour? It is provocation - I can deal with up-front, but I won't have my Talk page treated like this.

I will warn you over your "Whether or not the sailor comment is harmless" - you must 'assume good faith', and not suggest I am insincere: I apologised for any offence I might have caused Bardcom, which he accepted in good humour - you have no right to bring back up in an insinuating way. I have to ask myself why would you want to offend and upset me by 'wading in' this manner, and sullying my Talk page. I am entitled to be very suspicious here, and I'm too busy to be provoked and bullied from wide angles. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Harbouring anamosity towards a past or present Britain is not the best foundation to instigate something like this ..." - Quite right, but that's not what the substance of it is. Yesterday, a strange event occurred. A (southern) Irish politician - grandson of an Old IRA volunteer, nephew of a government minister expelled for running guns to the Provisional IRA in the 70's, from the party with the strongest roots to original Sinn Féin and known in English as "the Republician Party" - was sent as an envoy to the North to convince Northern Unionists to take their seats in an assembly for the government of Britain and Ireland as one. Truly bizarre!

In that article, you might notice that that assembly is looking at it's name. Names are great definers. (There's an argument over at Talk:United Kingdom over the foundation date for the UK, the substance of which is whether a small or capital 'u' appeared in name of the 1707 state.) Again, in that body, as well as the British-Irish Council, the term "British Isles" is studiously avoided. Though patently not through animosity. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

British Isles Noticeboard

Hi Matt. What do you think of the idea of a British Isles noticeboard? As you know, there are several difficult issues surrounding the subject and a board may be a way of co-ordinating our efforts. I don't think there is such a board, and I'm not sure how one would be set up. CarterBar (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea. Can I mull it over tonight? I'm trying to focus on Wales at the minute (while doing the usual other things in between - not least getting distracted by articles such as Britain and Ireland!) I'll give it some serious thought. It may help 'solidify' the term on WP, though really we shouldn't need to do this when a term is so widely used. I don't know if you ever saw this page Talk:British_Isles/name_debate, but it shows you how bad thinks can get on the subject (if you didn't know already!). The question is - would a noticeboard lead to more of this, or (hopefully) less? I feel it favours some just to go on and on endlessly. British Isles has something like 16 archive pages. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Look forward to seeing your views on this, for or against. I'll look at the page you mention. Thanks. CarterBar (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late reply - I've stayed up late to get it done (it's very important we do something I feel).

I've often found it hard to work out the differences between Wikiprojects, Portals and Noticeboards. It's interesting looking around. Portals give a lot of related information (I've just noticed Portal:Wales is a Featured Portal). They all have their own talk pages, Portals the least it seems. As a reference, the Wikiproject for Wales is WP:WALES, and the Noticeboard is WP:WWNB - they are probably not the best examples. I notice that British Isles is part of Portal:Geography and Portal:Europe, and that Geography is your thing.

Looking at all three, I think Portals probably want too-much 'front end' information (links etc) for us to maintain one, BI being so encompassing. Wikiprojects are full of useful management tools and resources etc, and have a join list - but will a BI one duplicate the others? (and the same for Portals). Noticeboards seem to be similar to Wikiprojects in some respects. They are broader, and suitable for suggestions etc, but could be more vulnerable to 'sabotage', so to speak (ie the typical BI scrolling waffle). There is also WP:Manual of Style. Somebody attempted a 'guideline' on BI usage, but it was very biased, as was someone else's counter-proposal too (imo, it's now lost as he since retired). The guideline idea seemed to fizzle out.

With your interests, you might know more than me whether a smallish Wikiproject could work. Would there be enough significant Bi-related pages under its wing? If there is I would favour it above a noticeboard, otherwise we could start a noticeboard and see what happens. At very least it could free up the BI Talk page a bit. An advantage of the Wikiproject is that the closely-related pages could come under it (ie the naming dispute, the BI Terminology page, the BI Island list and the Britain and Ireland redirect (!) - as well as pages like Deer of the British Isles etc (there are many like this as I'm sure you know, inc lots of lists) and templates like Template:History of Christianity in the British Isles. It could work.

These are articles that link to the British Isles article. This is a Google list of "British Isles" in en.wikipedia.org - it says 57,500, but the 'real terms' Google figure is 845. Lots pop-up on Google, including something I played around with in my own 'userspace' a while back here and left in the air (pretty much mid-edit if I remember - I got fed up with the Talk on the main one I was working on - the usual culprits).

I notice that the 'BI naming dispute' page has been put in this quite commonly-used template:

I'll try and find a way to remove it from it - I personally find the weight a few Wikipedians attribute to the "dispute" totally undue. I wouldn't mind if I could see real-life examples of it - but they want to push it in everyone's face based on a few academic quotes. I really want to see a proper Controversy section in the main article and lose the WP:POVFORK dispute page entirely - WP frowns upon them anyway. Before I edited it a month or so ago it was full of shockingly exaggerated language - none of which have even been reverted as they were so bad! Most of the discussion is in British Isles anyway - was makes the fork doubly-pointless, and of course all the arguing prevents the BI article from developing properly.

Incidentally, I've noticed this article, Geograph British Isles. What is your take on the Channel Islands being part of the BI or not? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt, thanks for a detailed and considered response. My primary concern in suggesting a noticeboard was to provide a focus for the co-ordinated efforts that are clearly needed to defend British Isles usage in Wikipedia. I use the phrase "British Isles usage" to include related issues such as those you've noted and many others. Some things British seem to be under a general low-level attack here, and British Isles is facing a full frontal assault for what I consider to be political reasons. I find it quite sad really. I'm of Irish ancestry, have visited the country many times, have Irish relatives and friends and yet I've never come across this so-called controversy before. Only when I come to Wikiepdia do I come across it. Currently the biggest threat, so far as I know, is the systematic removal of British Isles by Bardcom and Crispness and it was this that prompted me to think of how we might organise a response. I suppose a noticeboard has merits but I'm not sure how much use it would get. Your idea of a Wikiproject may be better, and I expect it would come with some sort of noticeboard facility anyway (?). Maybe we should canvas the views of others - form all sides of the debate - and see if there's wider interest. If so, I'd be happy to set it up (with help - I'm stll stumbling around the mass of policies and procedures, not to mention the Wiki language). Regardless of project, noticeboard or whatever, it's clear that we need an immediate and continuing response to the removal of the term by Bardcom etc. I know you're doing your bit, and I have a go from time to time, but it's debilitating work, and not really what I came here for. Some of Bardcom's edits are accurate and of course I leave them untouched (this one for instance [1]), but others are completely incorrect and many others are of a dubious nature. Unfortunately keeping on top of it is almost a full-time job and leads to frustration and edit warring, especially when User:Crispness chips in at a third revert. There must be some sanction that can be imposed by the community that can put a stop to these damaging edits. Anyway, enough of my ranting. I find the subject of the Channel Islands difficult within the context of the British Isles. The term is purely geographic, and as such, the CIs don't fit. However, someone, somewhere (I haven't yet bothered to find out) has declared that they are part of the BI. I personally don't agree, and it gives some ammunition to the anti brigade who use it as evidence that the term is more than just geographic. What I find annoying is the suggestion that because BI is a purely geographic term it usage should be restricted to purely geographic matters. Such a view is utterly stupid (IMO) but as you know it's currently being used to try and reduce content at the article. Cheers, CarterBar (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

CarterBar, this is a clear ad hominen attack - this behaviour is a type of bullying and is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Also, organizing like this is a form of meat puppetry, and is also not tolerated. --Bardcom (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I will look at how to start up a Wikiproject. We would need support to maintain it, but hopefully that will come. You can't guarantee anything on Wikipedia though - some seemingly important Wikiprojects, like Journalism, are surprisingly devoid of life. I wouldn't bother canvassing the 'other side' on it though - apart from sounding like too much hard work, it isn't really necessary: Wikiprojects are positive things, and most of them will no-doubt challenge its value. I'm sure they will join in when its up (unfortunately, but that's life). A Wikiproject could in many repects be ideal to coordinate from - we can list the articles due to priority, and even give them "importance" tags. They can be a bit like a noticeboard, yes. If we do it properly (I might even get my photopaint out for the 'userbox') the anti-BI bunch will have really shot themselves in the foot pushing for so much the way they do. They have a huge platform to express themselves on Wikipedia (more than anywhere one else would afford them) and they have totally exploited it, grabbing more and more limelight - it's all political avarice, as you say. One or two seem to be almost delusional with their sense of righteousness on the subject, while others are clearly more cynically attempting to influence the wider world. It wouldn't bother me at all off Wikipedia - but this is simply not the place. Anyway - that's my own rant over.

RE your mention of ‘sanctions’: My own (slightly paranoid) problem with ‘taking things higher’ on Wikipedia is that I’ve noticed that the accused can inititally receive more of the admin’s AGF. It can go wrong for the complainer – and gives them a big boost if it does. You take a big gamble with the admin you get too: Some might give you all of 2 seconds, while others might actually be biased the other way. Sorry I’m cynical here - there are excellent admins out there, but you can’t always pick them, and this is my experience. What I have found, though, is that a lot of the anti-BI bunch are very reticent to complain themselves of things like 3RR, civility, POV etc - despite them often threatening to do so, and giving plenty of faux ‘warnings’. You may have come across the odd user GoodDay, who occasionally complains about proceedings from a kind-of curiously detatched position, btw! One or two of the anti-BI bunch have been in trouble in the past too: I have nothing behind me myself, but I prefer to tackle them hands on, anyway. If you get any sniff of sock-using though, make a note of the evidence!

I’ll put all the BI stuff I see on my Watchlist – though it’s tempting simply to follow Bardcom’s daily tracks. I’ll try and do stints where I replace a number at the time, if I see he's gone on a rampage. It is debilitating, you're right. Edit wars usually happen due to the lack of numbers involved: when enough join in on one side things never get to be an issue. A Wikiproject might encourage people not to be scared off: It’s not a great climate for reverting on Wikipedia at the moment – I find the all the warnings flying currently around a little foolish myself. People are forgetting they are entitled to be bold.

I agree that the Channel Islands are not part of the UK geographically. We’d have to think of how best to deal with that. Some gov website page somewhere does call them BI, I think – I’ve forgotten where exactly myself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt, this is a clear ad hominen attack and is a form of bullying that is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Also, meat puppetry is also not tolerated. --Bardcom (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Many and often in the British Isles references

Matt Lewis. The references clearly say many, and clearly say often. These references are 100% suitable sources for WP. The text must reflect the references. If the references said "few" then the text should say "few". If the references said "a few lunatic wikipedia editors are the only people who object" then the article shouldn't mention objection at all because it would be excessive weight. The references say MANY and the references say OFTEN. Your repeated denials of this and removal of this from the article qualify as vandalism. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What if the reference said "Hitler was cool"? We must judge and weight the references. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If Cambridge and Oxford University Presses published histories of WWII by leading experts of the period that said "Hitler was cool", then I would (A) be very surprised and (B) give it some serious reflection. I haven't seen it happen and I don't expect to see it happen.

How about thinking about my point for a change? Don't call me a vandal, by the way. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Conversely Cambridge and Oxford University Presses published histories of the British Isles, by leading experts, have commented that the term "British Isles" is offensive/objectionable to many people in Ireland. So have many other reputable published authors. Of course, apparently you know better. If Matt Lewis is your real name then I suppose I could look on Amazon.com for books written by you on the topic of the British Isles and published by major publishers. How many would I find? I looked, NONE. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't question my name - you have NO reason to do that. My arguments including weight, exaggeration, the context of the account of the dissent (a historical account of dissent is just that) and asking for first-hand evidence to back it up - are simply solid and standard practice. When I look myself here I see a distinct lack of 'real life' evidence (and a paucity of quality academic evidence too, given the claim). You can shout "Oxford and Cambridge" all you like - you are studiously avoiding my points. This should not be an issue between us - you should have plenty of evidence for your "many". You need plenty of evidence in Wikipedia’s context for a word like this. Wikipedia should NOT slavishly follow the citations - it's the otherway around: Wikipedias rules come first.

And by the way, stop using people's Talk pages (including my own) to paint a picture of me as some kind of notorious troll - it's an underhand trick and you won't ever find me doing it. Pull back - read my points and keep searching for better evidence. And if you cannot find it why not question whether "many in Ireland" is the best wording here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The evidence found is already extremely good and more than sufficient for Wikipedia's standards. As you admit yourself, Wikipedia's rules come first and references from reputable scholarly sources (like - oh dear - Cambridge and Oxford) are regarded as the BEST sources for use in Wikipedia. Your search for something better is your problem. If you disagree with the sources then take it up with them. If you think that Wikipedia shouldn't regard Cambridge and Oxford published texts as solid references then take it up with the board of Wikipedia. Meantime your repeated removal of supported and referenced text is invalid and illustrates your own bias and arrogance. You believe you know better than the sources. If you are right, fine, but get your view published and then it'll be worth talking about. Meantime your view has as much weight in Wikipedia (i.e. practically none) as the view of any other unpublished partisan. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Watch 3rr. Also, apart from reverting totally supported text, you are deleting references again. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction from wotapalaver...Matt Lewis didn't seem to delete the reference...my mistake. He just reverted the text that is supported by the reference.Wotapalaver (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was locked for a period and we were told to discuss future changes here. You are just carrying on with the same non-consenesus changes - you can't bully me about 3RR. You and some 'handy' IP addresses are pushing it, not me.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, you may have missed it, but there was discussion, including on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. The sources I'm trying to use are reliable. As for 3RR, i can't bully anyone, I'm not an admin. Meantime, if you're accusing me of using some "handy" IP addresses in some sockpuppet form, please make the accusation formal or withdraw it. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

British Isles.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

You and the IP address have stitched me up, Watapalava: you are supposed to warn me BEFORE HAND too. I'm not happy with you - this is underhand.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR discussion of British Isles

Hello Matt Lewis. You are one of the editors named in the plan I have proposed on the 3RR board for ending the edit war on British Isles. For details see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Matt Lewis reported by User:Wotapalaver .28Result: .29. You are welcome to add your own opinion there. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If you continue to break the rules like above and being abusive to me I may have to get an adminstrator involved. You've been warned.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 22:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You have trolled me on Wales while using a sock - and have been caught red handed doing so. It simply is impossible for me to AGF. My suggestion to you is to be careful yourself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not troll you while using a sock. Honestly calm down. I never came across you until the Wales principality thing. That went to mediation. I don't know where you are getting this trolling thing. Frankly you're letting yourself down in your own proposal by making all these outlandish and crazy accusations instead of thinking about improving articles.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 22:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As User:Melvo you edited a paragraph on the Welsh Assembly you pointlessly faught with me on (to demote my country - no other reason). You deleted the 72 hour block details from your Talk page which would have saved me a lot of my valuable time arguing with you if I saw them (as I should have). Looking at your history I am 100% certain you are yourself a sock of another account (as you started life confidently claiming Scotland was not a country). I would like to change that paragraph in Wales but I know from experience that you will fight it - so I have left it for the time being. You worked closely with the sock of user:Gozitancrabz to troll over Welsh 'country' status - though you changed your tune after user:Gozitancrabz was found out to be an illegal account of a banned user. You now claim to support Scottish and Welsh independence! When I frustratedly asked you once if you had a problem with Wales you typically replied "I have absolutely nothing against the UK."! In short I am unsettled with you around. After the time I wasted in the Wales fiasco there is no way I am AGF'ing with a clear sockpuppet - no way. If I was 99% certain I would - but not 100% certain - it's asking too much. It's just a matter of time before you are discovered. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Who is this other user? There are lots of people who don't think Scotland is a country. I will personally get the user to say thats not the case so you can calm down on this issue. I actually had the Scottish independence userbox for a good few months. I added the Wales one recently I admit. I think you see me as some British Unionist. I am an Irish Republican so you couldn't be further from the truth. In that circumstance you said 'problem with your country.' Me saying UK was perfectly accurate. You didn't indicate constituent country. As you see in Talk:British Isles your opinion isn't the only one out there. If I feel in my opinion the Welsh article needs improving then I will do so. I am not trolling you or some other bad faith thing. WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 23:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at your User:Wikipéire history (your first and second edits!) I know you lose track of yourself as in Wales you stupidly referred to your User:Melvo edit as your own! As for the UK comment - nice try, that's almost sweet. I could find other examples but won't bother. I'd lay low if I were you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't mention any edit. I am talking about the discussion on the talk page. You're getting yourself confused now with all your paranoia. ;) I won't be laying low - I'm going to try and improve the accuracy of articles as I always will.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 00:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's funny kiddo, because you started this little discussion by "warning" me with a threat of admin involvement! I thought I would have transgressed your warning by now, surely? Calling you a 100% sock? Funny how I didn't feel too threatened isn't it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually you saying 'troll' on my talk page started this. I didn't talk to an admin as I feel you embarrassing yourself on the 'BI' talk page was enough punishment as it is. Oíche mhaith.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 00:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just to to warn you about the 3rr rule on the wales article.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 11:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt should be blocked for 24 hours. 78.19.213.117 (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never had so many IP's interested in me! --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm straight! LOL 78.19.213.117 (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not quite straight and narrow though. You seem pretty interested in me in fact! And there's me thinking you're trolling.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute with Wikipéire

Although I disagree with Wikipéire's edits to Wales, it's Wikipedia policy not to make personal attacks against other users. You can slag off the edits as much as you want, but not the editor or it may lead to a block on you editing. I'm just advising you before an administrator intervenes. Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, but I can't be trolled by this guy after the time he wasted of mine (especially by deleting the Talk section on his 72 hour ban for using User:Melvo - that really pissed me off, as I would and should have known about it earlier). He wars up to 3RR, so I'm showing him I where I stand. I'm convinced his ID is a sock too, and there a suspicious IP around me at the moment as well. If he leaves me alone, I'll leave him alone - as I'm sure people are on his case. Of course if an admin warns me I'll have to shut up - but none yet has.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the IP position is suspicious and that Wikipeire has behaved badly. He is an aggressive editor, happy to engage in edit wars, asserts positions based on a wider political agenda and does not deal with sources. However I think he is a different proposition from our other proven sock puppet, and will at the end attempt to reach agreement. However - and this is a fellow Welshman and sinner in this respect speaking :-) - I think there is a danger of being a bit too passionate in the responses and of making some of these disputes look like a "plague on both their houses" for an incoming administrator. I got sucked into it a couple of times and it was a mistake. I reversed his deletion of the 72 hour ban and posted an objection to his continued deletion by the way. However I think the future strategy should be to politely reject, ask questions and/or report activity. There are several administrators who watch this site and I think we can be confident they would intervene. --Snowded (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He's changes according to how warm it gets for him: it's not really compromise - sometimes he u-turns when things are hot. My plan now is to ignore him - which isn't easy. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi either stop harrassing me on pages I edit or I will be forced to report you here WP:Wikiquette alerts. Snowded has already warned you about this. Thank you.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 11:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Snowded? The editor who tried (unsuccessfully) to stop you deleting your sock puppet ban from your Talk page? Where has he warned me? I think you mean "advised". I'm trying to avoid you, but I don't like you calling other people a "troll" - they should know not to waste their time with you like I did. How come the only edits you have been making lately are on the only two pages I have been editing lately? Why did you recently go up to 3RR on a Welsh Assembly edit in Wales you know nothing about? Because I was editing it? Your supposed 'concensus' goes back to your sock use with User:Melvo. You have proved that you haven't even read the Introduction to Wales properly. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Welshleprechaun also warned you too. I am editing far more pages than you are doing mostly on Irish topics. Please stop this act where you think I'm doing something because of you. I went up to 3rr as user Pondle also agreed that the line made no sense. I then gave you a couple days to change it (I said so on the talk page) yet you did nothing. So I removed it. Now I see you are trying to compromise with Pondle on what the line says. (All of a sudden). Of course you refused to that with me because of your crazy antics. The consensus has only got to with me you and Pondle no one else. Its 2 editors against 1. I know enough about the Welsh Assembly to know that your sentence is completely misleading and factual wrong. That is all.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 12:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Warned? This is clear trolling. You ignored the comment I gave to Pondle when you 3RR'd - so it is a lie to say I am talking to him "all of a sudden" (and it's not a compromise - it's a development of a paragraph you removed). I'm now discussing it on my Talk page purely to keep away from you. I also left that paragraph for a number of days TO KEEP AWAY FROM YOU, as you 3RR, and you were wasting peoples time elsewhere in the most outrageous debate I've ever been in (Did you ever read through the now-banned User:Gozitancrabz and your souces which I tried to make light of in your Mediation page here)? Fortunately your partner was found to be a banned user.

Both User:Snowded and User:Welshleprechaun are highly critical of you (as you well know). Your are just trying to leave a 'better' trail here, as usual. If you call other people "trolls" and I comment on you - then you don't have much of a leg to stand on - especially in an article I am editing. I'm not going to let others waste time with you like I did (yes - I resent your Wales-belittling "anthem/language/country" debates big time). You have now even said I'm "stalking" you - that is just ludicrous - you came straight from Wales to here (and for a period was editing nowhere else than here and Wales). Why did you 3RR with me after using a sock on me in the same parag? (the sock you started the "Welsh is not a Official language" debate with) - and wasting all that time telling with me my country isn't really a country? I've told you how upset I am - if you had any sense at all you would keep away from me, rather than continue to wind me up. Where are these IP's from too? If you don't like me being "paranoid" (as you say) you shouldn't have done the stupid things you've done. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[He did warn you]. How is that trolling? It is a compromise I proposed a development of the paragraph [right here] yet you ignored it. So yes it is sudden that you now agree to change what the sentence says. Yes those editors are critical of me, they disagree with some of my logic but thats bound to happen with editors. Howver he does say he will at the end attempt to reach agreement. You seem to ignore that fact about me. I am looking to improve articles wuth something that everyone's happy with. I've had agreement on the anthem and language. If your upset that what you thought is not fact then stop taking it out on me. I am not winding you up, you are winding up yourself. If you can provide anything conclusive on an incident where I ignored the article debate and went on to annoy you then point it out. I can do so on you. It is you bothering me. The debate about Wales not being a country is legitimate. Legally its not a country. However the time for that debate isn't now, that debate is over for now. How about I give you my ip address? You can compare it to the others so you can get this paranoia thing over and done with. That way you can stop your abuse.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 14:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your "[right here]" link is full of your own mistakes, and even refers to the sock-puppet you used (the "Citation needed" which I filled)! I am under no obligation to re-write something to suite someone who can't even properly read the sentence he is commenting on! You focused on the EU and tried to remove it without any time or thought of what the sentence actually said about business ties - simply to belittle my legally sound country for your own political agenda. You are everything I hate about Wikipedia.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources don't match what you are saying. You can't read that yourself. That source is not legal. It could be viewed as propoganda. The UN or EU which I gave are legal sources. The sentence needs to be re done. If you can't agree with Pondle then it will have to go to mediation. You hate me? I don't like you myself. You have insulted me on numerous occasions. I didn't join Wikipedia to get abuse from a 37 year old in a mid life crisis letting steam out the only way he knows how. The sooner you stop making this personal and the more you look at the points being raised the better it'll be for the articles in question.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 15:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK Wikipiere - Fuck off from me you silly twat. The UN does not say Wales is not a country, nor does the EU (they look at the wider UK - a collective of constituent countries!!)- the UK (and everyone else out of your narrow matgin: historians, politicians, people) all clearly say that Wales IS and always was a country. You have stolen hours from me on this - you are a totally selfish thief. You will say it isn't - though you know how much that offends me having grown up in the country in question. You make me sound like some kind of radical to say something we have all grown up with - that is digusting of you in every way. You are a little shit.

Pondle and I have no "issues" at all over the EU - we are merely two normal editors in discussion (which I think is slow as he doesn't edit all that regularly). You don't need to threaten me with another mediation about it. Now is saying "fuck off" to you enough now? My problem is you are a sock who will troll me and threaten me, but never actually complain like you keep saying you will. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Right.............Clearly you are on the edge so to end all this. While editing articles: 1. I don't make a personal comment/insult about you. 2. You don't make a personal comment/insult about me. 3. We shall avoid each others talk pages from now on unless absolutely necessary. 4. In the event we are editing the same page. We must let other editors decide arguments between us if we come into disagreement again. This can be done by the two of us presenting sources without personally engaging with each other. We must pretty much ignore each other and just give out points as if the other person isn't there. If those are kept then there shouldn't be a problem. You have the power to end this disagreement. I will now go out of my way to avoid you (not that I ever attempted to get in your way for some reason) . I consider this over. It is up to you. However any more insults and the like will be seen as an act of trolling and not about editing articles so I will indeed have to do something about it then. Fin.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what? I had just written the following paragraph. You are an utter troll, but I'm going to post it anyway: you better adhere to it you little horrible little shite (a legal term in my eyes for what you are). I've only seen you make agreement when the User:Gozitancrabz was found to be a banned user. The other 'compromise' you used your Melvo sock (with an IP and Gozitancrabz) to achieve - and we all resent it, Snowded included. Theses are last-ditch "compromises" (that combine with the threat of your edit warring, and you having caused a locked article too) - they afford you absolutely nothing. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to whoever may be interested: I have just avoided two edits in a row that I could easily have made: one to an edit which Wikipeire has made - wiping mention of the words British Isles off the new Britain and Ireland article (and I'd like to amend to include the term in the Introducton, rather than a footnote at the bottom of the page saying "The geo-political area sometimes known as The British Isles"), and the other, just before he made it, in Wales - which someone else who wants to try it will probably do (and which I think Wikipeire is likely not to like). I am saying this as he's got right on my nerves, and I'm planning to take dramatic measure to keep out of his direct path (and keep him from mine). I will continue to contribute to the same articles though (frankly, I was there first) - and I advise him to think twice about dealing unadvisedly with my own comments/edits.

I am trying to work towards merging the British Isles naming dispute fork into British Isles to benefit Wikipedia (ie. to create an objective view of the subject, rather than a politically motivated slant on, or removal of it). I'll try and do it without touching the new Britain and Ireland article, simply to keep from the possibility of warring with him. I trust in return he will start to show me some respect and try and keep out of my way. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for your message. I agree it does look a little like there may be some sockpuppetry at work, particularly given the similarity of the areas of editing, but as there's very little cross-over between the accounts - only on Wales - and no disruption, no good-hand/bad-hand, no consensus rigging, etc. at this stage, I'm not sure that there'd automatically be a breach of policy.

In terms of IPs, I think it's pretty clear that Wikipeire predominently edits from the 78.16.xx.xx range - this edit and this edit to his talk page are pretty telling, and IPs from the same range crop up on Editors a few times, as well as T in the Park. The other IPs I'm not so sure about.

I'll drop him a quick note on his talk page. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 12:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes - time is pretty much of a luxury at the moment. I think that filing a checkuser on Wikipeire, Petitspois and the most obvious IPs is probably a sensible move, given that he has denied that it's him. Having looked at all the edits, I think it's probably pretty likely that there is more untoward going on than I first thought. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 11:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR

May I just politely remind you about the 3 revert rule before you get to involved into an editing war out of the heat of the moment. Don't want anyone to fall afoul of it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't be 3RRing, but the guy's a bona-fide multi-sockusing troll (trolling to me at least - and he's on his last legs now re socks) so I'm hoping some others will like my considered edit and put it back in. He hangs over my head and has rubbish reasons for reverting me. I'm as entitled as anyone else to contribute to the debate (and I have a lot over the months, before he has certainly).--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am blocking your for a period of 24 hours under WP:3RR. It seems from your past history on this topic that you are playing the system by continually reverting and not going over the three reverts, which is against the spirit of the rule. You have been warned about revert wars several times in the past, and you were warned on this one but continued reverting even after discussion was opened and engaged in on the edit page. Canterbury Tail talk 19:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong about "my past history" - please look more into it. I'm sure I've had 'warnings' after single edits from opposers, and IP's and trolls too - but should they count? I am not "playing the system" at all: I just can't tell you how much you are wrong there. Wikipedia needs genuinely fair playing people, and sometimes you have to stand your ground in life against those who genuinely are "playing the system". I am an honest editor and an honest man.

On the earlier 3RR on British Isles you refer too I was caught out by IP socks (I strongly believe of User:Wikipéire), and I said I would keep away and have done until now - where he has reverted me as a clear act of trolling as far as I'm concerned (but you will have to see our history for that). If you want to know about him read this. Can you confirm to me that Wikipeire is not trolling and not still using sockspuppets like his still-alive User:petitpois, and all those suspicious British Isles IP's? I am talking to an admin about it, but will put up a checkuser request myself when I am unblocked. It is all it will take I assure you.

I am someone who uses Talk I expect more than I edit. I was only ever admin-warned once before the IP-induced British Isles 3RR - and I was told it was not a "real warning"! The admin told me just to ignore it when I complained to him (it was for prematurely accusing someone else of 3RR - ironically it was 3, like now, and not 4). I'll have to speak to him about it when I am unblocked - I have always worried it is a red mark against me on some kind of admin-available list. In my own opinion, I've never done anything to warrant a sustained warning other than to lose my temper with Wikipeire's behaviour and swearing foully at him, which ironically I never got a warning for at all (although considering the language I used I probably deserved one). At the end of the day, socks and sock-IPs simply must be dealt with.

Also (irrelevant I know) - I thought I made a very good and considered edit, and it wasn't properly addressed at all!--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. "continually reverting and not going over the three reverts"? I think it's only fair for you to show me the diffs of me doing that. I don't think I've done that other than with the IP situation that went to 3RR - I've certainly not done it in the past with any intent. After the 3RR I only edited the once to put a 'merge' tag in a week or so ago, and once again earler today to replace it when it was removed to early, imo. Wikipeire removed it again after I replaced it, incidentally. Often his edits over periods are simply reversals of mine. My accusations of trolling and sock-puppetry are not merely wounded pride! --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend Matt be given another chance & that those IP addresses be investigated. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GoodDay, I appreciate that. If I had any sense I'd have waited on the admin dealing with him - but it seemed to lose momentum. I didn't expect him to push me too far on British Isles (and we both stopped) - but I wanted people to see the edit (and he clearly didn't) so I went for a third shot. Problem with the Talk page is that everything seems to rapidly scroll out of view - when I comment on what's now 'higher up' (as I have done with suggestions for the article) it rarely gets a reply as people focus on the bottom all the time. I've been to Irish pubs in Wales with less prattle going on. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it further, and GoodDay's good word I've removed your block. I'll check the edits again. Canterbury Tail talk 21:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Congradulations, Matt. You've been given another chance. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well! I was just giving you a 'ps' - I think I'll post it anyway:

PS. It may be another chance - but both incidents are clearly linked re the IP / user socking! The first was a cross-issue problem too (which doubled it in a sense, as they weren't related), and neither went to the full amount of edits (which is not the issue, esp with this article I know).

It's so hard to make progress with an article/intro/fork format like this: I just wish it was a standard article which we could build up properly. The problem is that some people want to put huge weight into the British Isles intro - as the 'dispute' fork contains all the detail and not the BI article itself! But they are getting the best of both worlds - and the combined weight of the two is outrageously 'undue'. They are also using Britain and Ireland now. It’s such a bad time for this, and seeing it is not what I signed up to Wikipedia at all. They have more space on Wikipedia to put their case than any other place in the world would provide for them, yet they want to exaggerate their claims and try and force out an old and well-used term. It's just not on. The overriding atmosphere in Ireland is for peace, and I've encountered some horribly anti-British sentiment on WP in the past 6 months - from people who clearly feel it is OK to do it, due to history. Can I be anti-Jewish due to Palestine? Palestine, at least, is a current problem - Ireland is in a new state. Some people find it hard to pull back. I object to using history texts (esp an account of dissent throughout history) to prove that something is the view today. The Folens example, and the general media usage of the term just show me it isn't the heavy deal they want to convince the World that it is. The introduction now exaggerates the intention of the Irish gov (which WP should never ever do) and the weight, relevancy and amount of history texts in the refs (refs which are more extended and 'spelled out' than other refs I've seen on Wikipedia). I made a decent compromising edit, but it wasn't given a chance. One thing is for sure - it is Wikipedia's flawed IP system that has ultimately lead me to being blocked, even more than my frustration over Wikipeire. It is crazy how people can be allowed to edit with them. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the block, by the way. I've been preparing a big (and promised) speech for Talk on the weight of the Intro refs - I think I'd be wise to complete it before making any edits again! --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

These days, I rarely get involved with the content of the British Isles article. Actually, since my experience at Scotland weeks ago (concerning that article's map), I've tried to be less involved in United Kingdom & Republic of Ireland articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock date

Hi Canterbury Tail- Wikipedia won't let me edit, and keeps giving me the exact time for the current 'unblock date'! eg "This block has been set to expire: 23:25, May 13, 2008."!

Hi Matt. Your block log says you're not blocked at present. What message is coming up? Bencherlite^Talk 23:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia." It has a 'Secure log in' (even though I am logged in - I've tried it anyway and it just logs me in again). It looks like it's a 'standard' block page - it has sections like "What does this mean?" which you can Show. It keeps giving the exact time as the expiry date! Hang on - it now says "This block has been set to expire: 19:36, May 14, 2008. Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. Most likely your computer is on a shared network with other people.". I think that is the original expiry time, before it was lifted. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Try reading this set of instructions: {{Autoblock}} Bencherlite^Talk 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi - the sections did not quite correspond to the instructions, but the copying the above code seemed the only option available. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Try now. Bencherlite^Talk 00:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great - I can edit. Sorry if I missed any obvious instructions - it's getting late. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, glad that's sorted. Happy editing, and good night. Bencherlite^Talk 00:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I suspect I may have kept you up a bit at this hour, so thanks again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I did something else whilst I was waiting, so my time was being used "productively" (if WP contributions ever count as such...) Bencherlite^Talk 00:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the unblock should have worked. I don't know where I went wrong, I'll read up on it so it doesn't happen again in the future. Canterbury Tail talk 15:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's OK - I appreciate the fact you turned it around. I didn't expect it at all, mainly due to the complicated 3RR before. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Matt, grateful thanks for reporting this one, and providing a nights entertainment watching the post ban defence. --Snowded (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I went to the admin who blocked Melvo, then straight to 'checkuser' as he was busy. The admin Alison got invovled (which I hoped would happen) and confirmed "most" of the IP's I listed. I doesn't look like he actually read her pretty conclusive response to my report, the way he complained! He did rather seem like an in-trouble school kid didn't he. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean, we won't be seeing those annoying 78.19.xx IP addresses anymore? I hope so. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've listed them here so we can easily cross-check in case he comes back. We can at least write them off 'head counts' (something he was rather too fond of I thought). People's viewpoints don't bother me (within reason) - it's cheating and rule-bending that really cheeses me off. Wikipedia has pretty simple rules - we just have to stick to them. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message - any problems of a similar nature in the future, drop me a line. _GB^T/C 07:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikipéire

No doubt if he's got a dynamic IP (albeit from a smallish range) or is using an open proxy, then yes, he can amend his userpage. I, on the other hand, can simply do this. _GB^T/C 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

At least he's now offered his own proof for the '78.16' range! Thanks for stopping it from carrying on. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - I've got most of the relevant pages watchlisted, but if you see anything from that range pop up on an old stomping ground, feel free to let me know. _GB^T/C 21:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User Talk:Bardcom. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

BI issues

Hi Matt, Thanks for your response. Let me read it in detail and get back to you. I've about had enough for this evening! Walking behind Bardcom with a bucket and shovel is getting tedious! Cheers. CarterBar (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User Talk:Matt Lewis. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bardcom (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt - I really think we should try and keep this debate factual and let others provoke but not be provoked. Your latest post is in danger of feeding trolls (much as I get tempted myself). --Snowded (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The above comment wasn't to me (I've just indented it). Or do you mean the BI page? - maybe I shouldn't have bothered with my last comment, as it's old ground I suppose. But he/she re-hashed a number of the cliches in on go. Bardcom was actually right in his response - some people think they can speak for the whole of Ireland and quite simply they can't. I don't like people suggesting it is sometimes "6 of one, half a dozen of the other" either - it's not at all like that in my experience. Most of the so-called "British" (in their pejorative sense) are just people like me, who are not into unifying Ireland (who the hell wants that?), but simply don't want to see Wikipedia an eysesore of bold refs and bias. Remember what it gets like before those removals people like me make which are grudgingly accepted by them: I've made a number on the "dispute" page they have grumbled about but tellingly not bothered to replace. If people allowed them, they would simply carry on grabbing more and more space until one of them removes the article for being "not relevant to anyone." --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I presume you're including me in your ad hominem characterization "another itinerant nationalist". Prove it or withdraw it. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You have got your way simply because I feel I can't trust gambling on unseen admins. Now Jack Forbes is with you I am keeping away from you, and I'm going to help Wikipedia here another way. You have had thousands of words from me, and you have callously ignored almost all of them. Somehow you are in control of that article, and I would be a fool to waste any more of my time on you. Others can try and sort you out.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I confess to being a little peeved off with the way you react to me whenever I take an opposing view. I would appreciate you being a bit more civil in your responses, whether you agree with me or not. Jack forbes (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you apparently still don't get it. I'm not in control of the article, but I am not the only editor who can read the references and not the only editor who does not have a reason to try to overrule the references. It seems as if consensus might form around dave souza's suggestion. Does that make him in control of the article? Wotapalaver (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of you, your schoolboy language like "you apparently still don't get it", your endless exaggerations and repetitions. I prepared a 'critique' of the refs for you, but you've shown nothing to suggest you will not crudely ignore it, as you always have when I've put the points in front of you. Your exact-word repetition after I've asked you not to do it is basic trolling - and you know that: You've done it many times just to wind me up. You have shown clear contempt over compromises too - not that you deserve to be compromised with. Wikipedia will benefit from the work I've done in a different way - it certainly won't be wasted on a rendered-ineffectual BI Talk page. Now please say whatever you have to say on BI talk - I don't need this in here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I've been perfectly willing to look at the critique. The fact that I bring it up indicates such. If you don't wish to engage in civil discussion that's a pity but I'll respect your wishes, just keep your ad hominems to yourself . Bye now. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My, that "ad hominem" is a popular phrase. "Bye" to you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't be too frustrated Matt. See my experience on the Scotland article. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom

Hi Matt, been away for a few days, but I notice during my absence the BI deletions have been going on at a fair rate of knots. I'm particularly anooyed at some of the ones today, because they blatantly remove facts just to get rid of the term. I've been looking at various procedures at Wikipedia. Do you think a Request for Comment might help? I know Bardcom has been subject to one already, but it might be worth another try. Something must be done. I feel the encyclopedia is being damaged by Bardcom's actions - and yes, I note his repeated "warnings" to users about so-called personal attacks. I'm not bothered by them. Thanks. CarterBar (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been busy too - a few admins do know what he is doing. As soon as I've got time I'll help to get his unacceptable removals back, then we can look at making a report on his actions - it is utterly gross and provocative of him. Admins can do more than he thinks - he likes to 'Wikilawyer - but it's not all about the letter of the law re 3RR etc.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User Talk:Matt Lewis. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You continue to make personal remarks attacking me. This is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Your latest remarks "it is utterly gross and provocative of him" are personal and do not address any concerns about any articles. As I've stated before, I'm always happy to discuss my edits on any article. If you continue to make ad hominen remarks and attacks, I will report your behaviour and you may be blocked. Bardcom (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally find your removals of the term "British Isles" across Wikipeda "gross" behaviour - I am entitled to do so, and it is honestly how I feel. You know that your actions have no cross-Wikipedia consensus (and that people feel they need to find the time to revert your actions), and thus I find it provocative of you to carry on, regardless.

Please stop calling valid criticisms of your undeniably-extreme editing behaviour "personal attacks". It will not act in your favour. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. With respect, WP:NPA makes it clear that behaviour involving personal attacks will not be tolerated. You continue to make personal comments and attacks, and this final warning is for again referring to my edits as "gross behaviour". Regardless of how you personally think or feel, you are not entitled to attack other editors. Bardcom (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am having to reply to you as you are just soiling my Talk page - and people do visit it from time to time to find out about me, as someone has just said they did below. STOP GIVING ME THESE SILLY WARNINGS NOW! If you are bothered with me saying to CarterBar that I find your systematic "British Isles" removal from numerous articles "gross behaviour" then make a bloody complaint, as you keep threatening to do. JUST STOP TROLLING ME WITH WARNINGS! There is no requirement on Wikipedia that you need to keep warning someone - these 'warnings' are simply provocative acts that look vaguely officious - but are not official at all.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt, the purpose of a warning is so that you have a chance to alter the behaviour that caused the warning, and to mark the offense (if any). Policy states that you should avoid making personal remarks about other editors, and to focus on the edit, not the editor. Despite these warnings, you've continued to personally attack me. Also, despite what you say, there *is* a requirement on wikipedia to continue to issue warnings. I have now issued a final warning, and as it states, if you continue to attack me, I will complain, and you may be blocked. The purpose of having warned you is to show an examining admin that all reasonable efforts were made by me to point out why I warned you, and to point out the specific incident, and to hope that you alter your behaviour.

Look, you obviously believe that many of my edits are incorrect. If that's the case, don't attack me - instead go to the article Talk page and discuss why you disagree. It's as simple as that. --Bardcom (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt is not attacking you, he is questioning your edits. That is clear for all to see. I too am questioning your edits because I find them provocative and many of them introduce errors into Wikipedia (some are valid). Calling your edits "provocative" or "utterly gross" is not attacking you personally, it's a commentary on your work. Neither Matt, nor I, nor anyone else is calling you, we are simply reacting to editing behaviour we consider to be inappropriate. Please stop issuing these false warnings, and more to the point stop removing British Isles usage from this encyclopedia. Here's a friendly suggestion - move on to something else in Wikipedia. There's a whole world out there and I'm sure you could provide useful content in many areas without causing controversy. Please consider this suggestion, initially perhaps as a temporary measure, before it is forced upon you. (copied to Bardcom's Talk page) CarterBar (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be short and clear. Personal attacks are not tolerated, and both you and Matt have been warned on this several times in the past. How you feel, or how Matt feels, does not give you the right to attack me. Calling my edits (for the second time, after being warned already) utterly gross *is* a personal attack. I've always been happy to discuss my edits - CarterBar, you already know this as we've had many discussions. You make the point that I occasionally introduce errors - if this is true, point them out. I would argue that for the most part, articles have fewer errors after my editing than before, and the term British Isles is now either used correctly and referenced, or replaced with the correct term. If you or Matt find this editing provocative or somehow believe it gives you the right to attack me, you are mistaken. --Bardcom (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Both I and CarterBar are clearly alarmed by your 'British Isles'-removal edits, and there is no law at all against us discussing that with each other. You are wrong if you think we cannot do it: These are personal Talk pages, and we are not making anything up about you at all. How can you be so offended when you are culling the term from Wikipedia at the same time? Don't think admins will take too kindly to your 'British Isles'-removal edits - they are totally against the philosophy of Wikipedia (including this one policy: WP:PRESERVE). When I have time today I will be concertedly focussing on the latest removals (as I've been planning to the last couple of days) - I will leave a comment about every one I choose to deal with in the requisite Talk pages, as I usually do. Some may indeed turn out to be valid, but in general it is simply not on.

PS. You might have forgotten the way this ended, but I haven't. You never replied to that - and it's the extent I'm willing to go to prove someone is wrong. Your attitude was poor then and is no better now. As we are asking things of each other let me ask this: please don't so lazily waste any more of my time. You cannot remove references to Ireland's history within the UK (or the The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as it once was called) and you cannot remove valid references to "British Isles" from within Wikipedia unchallenged. It is ultimately a waste of everyone's time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay

Hello Matt. Please don't question my motives (at British Isles), as I've not questioned yours. It doesn't help in cooling things down. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect - I've always struggled to understand you (you cannot be surprised by this given the off-the-wall way you make comments!) - and at the moment I simply cannot understand you at all. I don't think you've done much to cool things down lately, which I thought was your 'thing'. How do you justify backing that Souza 'suggestion'? It just takes away the line that says "British Isles" is widely used! With the self-proclaimed nationalists Snowded and Jack Forbes coming from Wales (via Scotland in Forbes case) - I can't see any hope for this article at the moment. I feel very cheated the way I've been sweet-talked into things on Wales too - esp the Info box. Never under-estimate how the the pull of nationalism obscures and warps fariness and objectivity. I have always been for the integrity of Wikipedia: it has the power to encompass everything when used properly. I also like to know where people stand, and I haven't a clue with you!.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ask others who know me. I'm quite apolitical & there's no place where I stand. Think of it, I'm a republican who frequents monarchy articles. I'd hoped by joining the current BI discussion, I could've calmed the waters; but I see now, my calculations were wrong. Very well, I shall 'keep out of it'. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you have said that elsewhere before, I admit. I myself have politics (and they are not as decidedly "British" as people say they are regarding BI), but I strive to keep them aside: it certainly IS possible - for me anyway (and according to WP policy, of course, it is essential.) Regarding you choosing to 'keep out' or not - you can do what you want - but I have to say that I've not asked you to do anything other than explain to me why you supported something I myself see as clearly nationalistic and disruptive. Simply removing the words that say "Although (the British Isles is) widely used" and then having the gall to present it as a "compromise", and a "developing consensus"?? It is a strange thing for an apolitical person to support, let alone an 'appeasing 'Wikipedian. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Do as you like, think as you like. I'm obviously not helping things. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wotapalaver

Hello Matt. I believe you should be careful of 3RR. You've definitely done three reverts already and the first edit after the page protection might also be viewed as a revert. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you are doing it properly - ok. They are not reverts in the sense you mean: too much goes on when someone with unexpressed ideas (in this case Tharkuncoll) justs removes everything (inc the original text) simply expressing "POV", and then an abusive IP (who's called me a BNP supporter) jumps in and replaces the original text again. Waht do I do? I have basically made more than 3 edits - and I only planned to make one. It's not my fault - it seems that making one single edit and allowing it to be reverted is impossible in BI - it immediately gets complicated. If you played fairer in Talk I wouldn't make any edits at all - I'd leave it to others, the way I get trapped in the 'edit ring'. I hardly want to get in trouble again do I? But compromise with you would mean you taking a proverbial mile instead of several hundred - and you just refuse to budge at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I put a warning here now because you did a further revert since I first commented on the article page. As for your "innocence" in this, I struggle to see how you can claim it. The first edit on the page after the removal of protection - while discussion is still ongoing - is your edit, which wildly and knowingly goes against whatever shred of consensus was emerging on talk. On top of all that, your edit was factually incorrect as well. Cool. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You have said in British Isles Talk that I am trying to start edit wars, and that I should be banned for it: Where is the apology I asked for? I don't normally ask for apologies - but for this I demand one. You now sound like you are planning to Report my recent edits, like you did before: It is a small person indeed that tries to get others in trouble the way you have done with me.

As for what you call the "emerging consensus" - that little 'poll' was the most insulting case of mick-taking I've ever seen on Wikipedia: I made proposals to find a compromise (as I always do), and a small group of anti-British responded by supporting making things even more unfair: You now want to remove the line that says that "British Isles" is widely used! This is posed as a compromise to people who find the article too-weighted towards a Wikipedia-fashioned "name dispute" that has nothing like this much weight given to it anywhere else in the World! The article is called British Isles and you have thoroughly abused it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Matt Lewis, I am unable to "get you in trouble" on Wikipedia. Only you can do that, by edit-warring and personal attacks. You seem to like both of these approaches. Again, I supported a text proposed by another editor, and I still do. If you believe there is a "small group of anti-British" then you're simply wrong, incorrect, not right, etc. Finally, please point to even a single case where I have "thoroughly abused" the British Isles article. I've stuck to references and not much else. Your problem is that you don't like what the references say. That's not my problem. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Question re BI naming dispute

Matt - something struck me. Has anyone enquired where all the editors in the British Isles naming dispute actually come from? Recalling other such discussions, it seems evident that there are outsiders who simply wish to cause trouble. I've noticed that people who actually live on the island of Ireland, while they can have really serious differences with each other, don't generally create division and rancour for the sake of it. I don't recall them doing this on petty-fogging grounds. Whereas some outsiders seem to do nothing else. I can't trawl all the discussion there's been on this topic (I don't even know how many dozens of articles are involved), so I'm coming to you to try and discover whether this angle's been considered. PR^talk 13:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the people who've been at it for a while have a fair idea of each others POV (it's one of those issues where it's hard ot be neutral). But with Wikipedia who knows? Some socks and IP's come in from time to time. In my opinion WP is a hotbed of pretty extreme views, but people in the end can always wok something out IMO (as is hopefully starting to happen here). I've argued all along that I've never seen the kind of 'dissent' WP affords the term in the wider world (or even in references past a handful which are heralded by some here like thy are the contents of the holy grail!) - but this is WIkipedia and has rules of its own. We have to satisfy those on it who want to have their say.

I'm personally 'in the middle' on the BI issue (I'm a Brit, who sees the term a a commonly used one, but wants to see the term used sensitively.) But there are many (broadly speaking) nationalists (supporting full independence of Scotland, Wales and NI) and Irish (some who are very much into removing the 'stigma' of the Britain from Ireland - and they largely seem to support UK's break up too). To a lesser degree perhaps, there are pro-British involved (though that logically is the broader view on WP). We have some unfortunate trolls from time to time who are very imperialistic about Britain (which embarrass me no end). And trolls who blame the British for all the evils under the sun (they ignore the good stuff alas). There are others around like me too - it's a mixed bag. It's probably not too helpful to group them, but is hard not to at times. The task force is good news as people are prepared to talk in one place (so to speak) at least - in view of wider 'guidelines' on the BI term. I'm a bit frustrated at the moment as the task force hasn't quite started - hopefully it will today (though I'll probably miss it as I'm going out!).

I suppose to answer you briefly - it's a typical WP story in a contentious matter, perhaps. No doubt many are scared off by all the stuff flying around. Wikipedia seems to be empty at times (despite all its members) - it's all down to the intensity of the few. I suppose i can be one. A few articles are central (and of course lots that use the term) - ultimately we will have to deal with a fork of the main BI page (the 'British Isles naming dispute', as you know). In the commonname terms, BI is used as a geographical term - but if someone sees it as political, then to them it simply is. Like you, I think Ireland itself has better things on its mind right now. The 'task force' (a sub of Wikiproject:Geography) came about when someone went around removing the term, then someone else started to put it in where it wasn't already: if that carried on it would have been mayhem! The River Shannon is currently locked because of it. Hope I've answered a few things.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you've answered lots of things. However, I wondered how many of the people contributing have nothing really to do with Ireland or the UK (living, perhaps, 3000 miles away), other than a determination to cause it/them trouble. This is a feature I've noticed before, a kind of racist gang-making activity, people drawn to discussions on Ireland by the "glamour" of violence and bombings and the satisfaction of causing upset to sometimes grieving people. Similar activity may swirl around Cuba and places in the Middle East. PR^talk 14:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a (probably semi-humorous) term called 'plastic paddy' (insert your nationality!): it's someone who cares more about these type of things, simply because he/she lives abroad. The IRA certainly benefitted from some 'glamour status' in the US. That is an idealised thing though. In terms of disruption I think it's more to do with what Wikipedia is open too: the whole 'miasma' is in here - and it can all be done from a couch! Also some people are very young too - there's no doubt wisdom, experience and perspective plays a part too. In the middle east and Cuba people have those financial and cultural reasons for bias (and hence all the many forms of disruption - as I'm sure you know), but with Ireland I think it's more a glamour thing for any 3,000 milers involved (who aren't all that Irish) and an genuinely imperialistic one for the British equivalents. In terms of disruption that is. Since the Northern Ireland Assembly, the NI factor is less of an issue - it clearly needs to succeed at it's own pace now (wherever it goes), and disrupting that won't be welcome by anybody IMO.

Sorry if I'm missing a point, or question. I'm going out soon. Probably be back on once. Can you do me a favour? If you know an intelligent and neutral admin (esp neutral in this issue) - can you get him to look at the request for opening the task force on the Wikiproject Geography Talk page? No one in Geography (perhaps unsurprisingly) seems to want to do it. I'll be out a lot of the weekend alas, but it clearly needs to get going.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain to me and others the real nature and scope of what you need doing? It would help us find a facilitator, and it might save us from mission-creep later.

Actually, someone encouraged me to come over and help you guys out before, thinking I'd either be neutral, or capable of teasing out the most important elements of a nationalist debate. I blotted my copy-book by immediately declaring the underlying "dispute" to be silly. Not that having such a POV would actually stop me doing a good job, of course! PR^talk 16:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just to open it really - one of us could do it, but I put it in the poll that it needs to opened by a neutral at WIKIPROJECT:GEOGRAPHY (the request is on the talk page here). I didn't want to put a more general request to the wider 'community' (I know there is a place you can do this) as you never know who's going to apply! Unfortunately there has not been a taker at GEOG. I'll look through my edit history for an uninvolved American admin, that could do the trick - it's been a couple of days now and I'm tempted to just open it myself (but I won't). I'll make sure it's done today.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking a chance

I know I'm taking a chance here, but I would like to say you are being the most level headed person on the debate concerning the British Isles Template. I think I know your opinion on the term BI, and it takes someone big to discuss this in the way you are doing. GULP , There you go, I've said it!Jack forbes (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Bigger Gulp - will the aliens who abducted the old Matt give me a sign? Seriously, I agree. --HighKing (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't remember changing over anything. Apart from maybe polling on the 'noticeboard' idea - CarterBar wanted to put it to everyone, but I would have originally cut to the chase. Once debate has started though, it has to be done properly.

Btw Jack, I notice you've succumbed to temptation a little - although in a very low-key way. Nobody wants to see you jeopardise your chances of coming back. There is always a chance of a review before 6 months, but that's far less likely to happen if you re-involve. It only takes someone to refer to your comment and you'd be part of the debate.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, I dipped my toe in, then ran away. It's cold turkey from here on in. Jack forbes (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

accusing an established editor of replacing your talk page with obscenities

Why did you accuse TharkunColl of vandalising your talk page? I doubt he is User:Noobhunteristhedude, I doubt TharkunColl, a mature English gentleman, ever used the word 'noob' in his life. Your comment was beyond rude. Sticky Parkin 14:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"I doubt TharkunColl, a mature English gentleman, ever used the word 'noob' in his life." That's a keeper that is. The "gay foggot" vandalism happened during the '2RR' between him and myself on that template he made - it was just a question, not an accusation. I find tautology highly offensive. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:) Why's that a keeper? I was trying to say an English person of a certain vintage. Out of interest, you could ask him if he's ever used the word 'noob' :) Yes 'gay faggot'- maybe it's not a tautology but meant an intensifier, and means an even gayer faggot than the average faggot? :) Just wondering- not saying it's true or anything as far as I know.:) Sticky Parkin 18:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have no idea what "noob" even means, still less have I ever used it. Nor, to my knowledge, have I ever used the word "dude" - unless perchance I was quoting someone or perhaps being ironic. Similarly with "faggot" - unless, of course, if referring to the meaty food item invariably served with gravy. ðarkuncoll 21:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Taskforce on British Isles usage

Hello Matt, I think you should open the Taskforce. The members at the Geography WikiProject seem either reluctant or uninterested (seeing as it's been 4-days, now). GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I put it to a couple of people - an uninvolved American admin and someone from GEOG who happened to be online yesterday (though I think just went offline after I messaged her - hopefully not in horror). If nothing happens by 10.00pm (about an hour) I'll start it. Or thinking about it, why don't you? The start link is there and could you go by text I wrote. It couldn't be easier really.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you're offline. If you don't do it before, I'll do it at ten. It's getting a bit silly now like you say! --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I weren't off-line, just was in another section of Wikipedia & intially wasn't sure how to get it going. Thanks for starting it up Matt. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's to bad we couldn't make a trade-off, eh? Which shall we hide British Isles or Republic of Ireland. I assume Wikipedia would frown on such a compromise though. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever we come up with, it won't be 100% pure MOS that's for sure. But if we foge a final Guideline out of it, maybe it would qualify as an exceptional issue. I personally like "..in the Republic of Ireland and the surrounding British Isles." for the Irish-heavy geographical articles (for me, non-geographic = non-use for Irish-heavy articles). If it means disrupting any 'consensus' on the piping of ROI, I'm more than happy to do it. Ireland can simply mean Northern Ireland too, so it's just daft using the pipe anyway. Is sounds to me that the wrong side won a lengthy war here: but they are tight and powerful bunch, the "Ireland, Ireland" lot. It could be the root of the problem. (as you have suggested, in fairness).--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think my BI/RoI suggestion, is heading towards the scrapyard. Sarah & Tharky seem to have given it the 'bronx cheer'. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I must be honest, you're way ahead of me at the Taskforce (which is a good thing). I'm quite content with the effort you're putting into it & amazed with your ability to think up all these quidelines. I'm afraid somebody else will be required to give you a more accurate analysis though, as I'm a bit overwhelmed. Again, whatever's decided (at the taskforce)? I'll go along with it. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, those edit wars are stirring up again. I think blocks will soon have to be handed out. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

PS, don't let anybody bully you away from the Taskforce. Sometimes, people don't wish to see somebody try & fix things; so hang in there. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think as we near 2009; administrators will be more heavy handed on these British Isles usage edit wars. Less page protections, more editors being blocked. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope so - I've always felt that through full protection, the ultimate punishment is on the articles themselves, and the people who want to edit them, rather the people who edit war to the point where they are locked. I do think admins can be too quick to lock as well. They need more dispute resolution options other than 'block and lock'. And whatever people think of the "never a good place" factor, articles can be frozen in some poor situations. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think you're single-handedly keeping this Task Force together. Kudos where it's due, and you've more support than you might think - especially from me. --HighKing (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed your suggestions have all been decent - if we keep it up we can surely get something through. I'm certain that giving people choice is the key. There will always be certain articles that people will argue over - but we have the various talk pages for that. We just need guidelines that can show people that there are certain places where the term is being used where it isn't really suitable, and there are also places where it is being disallowed on principle, when we should allow for a method of including it should anyone wish to do so. At the bottom of it all is the censorship issue: these can only, at best, be strong guidelines for all the forms of usage that are likely to arise - but that should be good enough. Trying to create 'tunnels' or 'moulds' is just wrong. Matters like the pipe-link in Ireland can be too transient - proper stable guidelines should be able to encompass things like that, not be fashioned by them.--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Pipelinks

IMHO, the pipelink [Republic of Ireland|Ireland] was a mistake. It now forces us to use the pipelink [Ireland|Ireland (island)]. Trust me, getting Republic of Ireland moved to Ireland (that discussion is currently under a 6-month moratoriam); Ireland moved Ireland (island), to avoid those pipelinks? Would be a major headache. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've actually never been one to stray into other territory when it doesn't cross my own - so they can do what they like there, although I don't like it either, and will certainly add my 'support' to any reversal of the 'rule' on it after the daft moratorium is lifted. If there needs to be a moratorium, it simply cannot be right to have one! I've always argued that Britain needs flexibility, and this pipe intentionally stifles British identity re NI. I will, however, suggest using the Republic of Ireland (without pipe) for the sake of the new BI guidelines. Past rulings like that mean nothing to me when new articles are concerned. I don't give two hoots if things will then not be 'uniform' (if that was one of their arguments). Life isn't uniform - and flexibility with the UK is the key.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This all comes back to my (days earlier) suggestion, concerning British Isles usage. We either have [British Isles], [Republic of Ireland|Ireland] used Or [British Isles|Great Britain and Ireland], [Republic of Ireland]. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I still favour "[Republic of Ireland] and the wider [British Isles]" (as a choice from amongst many). If you provide people with choice they don't grumble so much.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Indents

Curious, why'd ya re-indent my last posting? I generally try to keep my postings at the same indents. That way, our postings won't get too far over to the right. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

On BIT you mean? I occasionally re-align any indents I see to try and fit with the way the flow is going. The problem with indents is that they can be fine at one point, but become less suitable as new people add comments - I don't think there is a perfect rule for them. If I've messed with your meaning feel free to put it back! The page is getting quite long now and I'm always trying to keep it easy to follow. At some point we might have to archive part of it, which I don't really want to see, but we might not have a choice.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Matt, you've done an incredible amount of work over the past two weeks. Most of it is very good. We're all working together on this new task force to reach an agreement. We are not going to agree on everything, and nobody is going to get it all according to their own views. There will be compromises by everyone. I'd prefer if you reverted your latest comment against my post on the mediation cabal page - it's not in keeping with the great work you've done on this to date, and I really don't want this process to stalemate. You are very very close to this process. It might be time to step back for a little while - or maybe for everyone to step back and have a think. --HighKing (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry (I started using you old name then!) - you jumped in supporting Snowded on the MEDCAB page (which I made between him and me) so you will have to roll with what I said I'm afraid. What I said I stand by - you must accept that and not patronisingly tell me to stand back - I'm standing my ground, not losing my mind! Virtually everything I've done I can be flexible on - but the guideline HAS to framed in the best way. And that means using ROI. Weaken the frame and it will all collapse. Your geography-only route will not go anywhere with Tharkuncoll et al - so how are we going to get a guideline out of it? I wouldn't accept it myself. We cannot censor on WP - it is not in the ethos of WP, so will never stick. We have to be clever instead. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't clear that the MEDCAB page was to be reserved for you and Snowded - the link was placed on the taskforce page, and normally these processes are open to all editors. I wasn't "siding" with anybody, but indicating my position. I wasn't patronising you, but trying to inject a pause, for your benefit. Take it as it was meant. I respect your opinions - I mightn't agree with them all, and I try to debate those I don't agree with, while also proposing alternatives. Tharky is entitled to join into this discussion whenever he wants to, if he doesn't agree with something, he's very capable of saying so himself. I'd prefer to at least debate why you feel RoI *needs* to be part of the guidelines. I don't *understand* your reasons (they're not clear to me), so I can't form an opinion on agreeing or disagreeing based on *your* reasons. I've tried to explain *my* reasons, that's all, and I've tried to formulate some simple guidelines to ringfence what we can all agree with, and push the disagreements into clear view. I'm not into censoring WP either, and my suggested guidelines clearly show this. Starting out with an "I wouldn't accept it myself" statement leaves me with nothing more to say, does it? Just who do you want to participate in this? Perhaps you'd be happier if only you and Snowded worked it all out? If you want me to piss off, just say the word. --HighKing (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The only way to start the MEDCAB was to put the tempate at the top of the main page and follow the link that it created after saving. It then asked me who my dispute was with - leaving room for one name. It suited me, as my only issue was that I couldn't carry on in the same vein with Snowded, essentially having to read and say the same thing. I couldn't grasp where he is coming from now, but I can't focus on him properly at all at the moment. Maybe tomorrow. The best thing for me right now is to concentrate building up the examples. We need to offer as much choice as we can, from all the favoured angles, with all the provisos/limits/restrictions/barriers etc that come up. The comments sections under each one have been fairly succesful, imo anyway. We can always decide what to use towards the end. You do what you want. Maybe think about the ROI issue?--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Matt, please check my recent posting at the Taskforce. The RoI thingy dispute, is kinda confusing for me, but I think I'm understanding what you're saying. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm losing track of it myself now I've stopped looking at it edit by edit. I'm worried it could spiral out of control - personal sections, cross debates etc. It's got very long too. I'll see what you've written anyway. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Snowdon & Carrauntoohil

It looks alright to me; but personally I'd have Great Britain (instead of Britain). GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read the extra bit on Carrauntoohil yet! --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd add Carrauntoohil's ranking in the British Isles, aswell. But, that's just me. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to revert my tweak at Snowdon? feel free. I made that edit, as an example of what I felt would be more accurate (in otherwords IMO). GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

c/e - No, good idea adding "Great Britain". It did say British, I changed it to Britain as a prose edit. GB is better than both of them. Have you noticed that it has to begin with Wales? You'd never get a Welshman to lose that! So it can't always just be geographical. It's only the ambiguity of the word 'Ireland' that allows people to insist on "the geographical" there. If the island of Ireland was called Mungadunga it would be a different kettle of fish!--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you mentioned Ireland. The article Republic of Ireland has either got to be changed (when the moratoriam ends) to Ireland (state) or the Pipe-link has gotta go. Also, I truly believe Wikipedia has got to make a deal with the opposing sides of British Isles usage -- Allow usage of British Isles? and we'll allow the article Republic of Ireland to become Ireland (state). GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

At least you've had the honesty to call it what it is - a deal. It's what I've been fighting against, though - I've sure you've seen the MEDCAB case. I'm convinced we can do this using the English language. I'm hoping to help put together a guideline that is very hard for either side to reasonably turn away. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep it's a Wiki-deal - something for both sides to consider, if they can't come to an agreement. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It would still need to be framed by Ireland (state) mind. Forcing geography from the start (ie Ireland) doesn't work. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, I've made them all an offer they can't refuse. But, if it doesn't take? Oh well - that's what the taskforce is for. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

IP 86.xxx.xxx

Hiya Matt. I'd suggest you ignore that IP's postings, as he/she's just a troll (looking to stir up trouble). It's quite likely a sock-puppet of the banned user Gold heart. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In the past I've tried to fight all this, but losing momentum is a killer. That "Souza proposal" pantomime was a disaster - look how Snowded is using it now! What a disgrace he is. It could bloody murder Waggers for so stupidly blocking me for nothing at all (mainly Jack Forbes request) in the middle of my own proposal - in a metaphorical way, of course. The hyper-nationalists Snowded and Jack Forbes suddenly got involved and pushed my proposal off course, and I needed to be there to keep it on track. The supposed "11 editor" victory simply was for the status quo, as it simply went wildly off track, and people clearly got pissed off. What did you do? You openly voted for whatever others were supporting.

I know I shouldn't get roused by the nationalist thing - but it's more than just pro-independence - it's constantly borderline anti-British bigotry. I'm determined to see Policy win over this time, and not the extremists for a change. It makes a mockery of Wikipedia, and all the time I spend on it. Snowded has the 'upper hand' on calmness (a professional trait no doubt), but I think he's behaving like a total disgrace on the geography/political issue (whichever suits him) - and I'm notching his nudges too: so he won't get me on 'NPA', like he's trying so hard to do. I find it totally disgraceful, I really do. I never lose hold of logic - and I'll finally get this matter I've been concerned with for so long fairly resolved.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you & Snowy, can patch things up. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that Jack Forbes later admitted to trying to get me blocked? Where was Snowded then? I didn't get a peep from him in here. He was too busy burying my Proposal and entirely replacing it with his one-word change. Anyone fair and honest would have kept hold of the original proposal and all the suggestions in between. But he is a totally partisan single-purpose editor. Or rather it's either his "cognitive philosophy" dispute-resolution job (really), or the break-up of Britain. He is now gloating about a supposed 'weight of the previous victory', and has kindly shown people the diff! How can I not fight it? What choice do I have?

So what is there to patch up - he is no way a friend is he. He wants only one thing GoodDay, and if you ever saw or lived in Wales, you'd realise how totally far from reality in every possible way it is in people's hearts, and reality too. We only-just passed a much-needed Assembly in Wales because people are so wary of splitting from the UK! Everyone thought the referendum would fail (before and during) - fortunately it just peeped through at the end. Nobody in Wales wants the scary madness of a full independence from the UK - even if Scotland broke off first. It's all a constant attack on NI, Wales, Scotland - the whole UK basically. For Scoland I can at least understand it, even if I disagree - but for Wales? It's just bonkers.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten a few bruises on me, from the Scotland article (concerning squabbles over the Infobox Map, the inclusion of constituent county & removal of nation). They branded me a UK Nationalist & I suggested they suffered from 'group ownership'. I haven't been to the article Scotland, since. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just letting ya know, I'm gonna hang back for awhile, from the BI & Roi disputes (but I'll keep watching). GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll step in when you think you can help things out again - it's just an impasse. Unfortunately the impasse is going on in around 4 different places right now! Partly my fault for not keeping out of the other conversations - but people were clearly starting to ignore WP:BITASK, and following their chosen routes elsewhere. HighKing seems to like the guiedline at least, and has made a good edit on it. Not sure if he likes it all though. I should look and see where CarterBar has got to (he can be reasonable too) - the whole eventual 'locked article' phase all initially began with those two arguing in various Talks. Perhaps all they needed was a guideline to follow. I might gamble that Tharkuncoll is 'OK enough' with it, and push it forward at some point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

British Isles Mediation

Do you still require mediation? SilkTork *^YES! 14:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've closed it as the discussion in it has died. It's a policy/guideline matter underneath it all (ROI-usage and what is allowed in "geography" articles). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Snowded still wants to continue this. I don't particularly, and I think it could potentially cause mayhem now, but I did originally open it I suppose, and I'm certainly not going to be publically told that I've guiltily 'backed out'. So it has to be re-opened - can you do this? Sorry it's in such poor faith, but I'm afraid it simply is as far as I'm concerned. I won't be pulling any punches about any non-neutral who involves themselves. I've always been open and honest as an editor, and when there's no good faith left, there's no good faith left. If nothing much happens in it (and with any luck this will be the case - the original argument is pure policy as far as I'm concerned now) maybe it can just stay open? I don't want me ending to soon it to be an issue again.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll re-open the case. It looks interesting, and what you are doing with creating the taskforce will be of immense help. When I was first on Wikipedia in 2006 I did encounter some of the problems regarding the terminology of the British Isles when dealing with creating categories, so I am aware of the issues, if not exactly familiar with them. What I have read so far looks promising. SilkTork *^YES! 14:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just a quick note then- I think that most people involved in this can be reasonable outside of the 'British' issue (both myself and Snowded included) - I'm sure you realise that this is a case where it is very hard to be active in and also have no 'POV'. I see myself as 'in the middle' with it (which is why I've taken so much on - I just want a broad and fair guideline) but I concede I am pro-British (in the underlying sense of national identity - this spills over with us all, and effects all the UK articles). With the BI term I am mainly pragmatic - I wish it didn't exist, but it does. As for accusations of full-independence nationalist bias etc, I admit I do make them from time to time. Not clever I know, but it gets frustrating. It's all impossible to prove, of course, hence all the bubbling over with most of us every now and again. Anyway, I can take reasoned criticism on the chin. All I'd expect really is an objective view. I'll be on WP most of this evening, looking at the flora issue with the guideline, and the British Isles article itself (which clearly needs to be in tune with any guideline we manage to put together). I'll only re-enter the MEDCAB if Snowded does. It still may be the case that it doesn't get used. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to deal with this via talk-pages or any place that's convenient. The only thing I won't do is get involved in emails. There is no accountancy trial with emails.

Here are some questions I'd like you to address:

1. What, in a nut shell, would you like to happen that you feel is being prevented from happening?
2. Who or what is responsible from preventing it from happening?
3. Why do you feel it is being prevented from happening?

I'm initially talking to you and Snowded. Who else should I be talking with? SilkTork *^YES! 14:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Biota of the British Isles

Think I'm a bit of a push-over, that's the fourth time I've changed the title! If other projects/tasks are using British Isles then I'm happy with that. Hope to have your help with it all. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been a thorny issue politically in the past, but mainly because Wikipedia is entirely consensus-driven and we have to acknowledge the voices who edit here. Sometimes people get over-cautious in geography articles, but 'British Isles' is still a standard as a 'technical' (ie not political) word. The new proposed guidelines should help with it all - especially when people are over cautious in using it as a technical term: but it's used this way the world over in geography, geology, archaeology and natural history related instances. As your article is geographical, stick to BI per consistency and you'll be fine. I'm looking more at geography articles on the whole these days, so will give yours a look. If anyone does protest over you using BI (which is unlikely I think), just offer comparative examples (List of islands in the British Isles, List of mountains of the British Isles by relative height, etc) and don't be perturbed. It's not likely to happen with the taskforce up and running anyway, and plenty of people will back you up if it did.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Ireland/ROI polls

Hi Matt, I see you added a new question to the poll. Would you mind withdrawing this question for now until we can see where we stand with current practice. If consensus shows that current practice needs some tweaks, we can open another poll (which I believe you are prempting) and try to work out the scope of tweaks required. There's nothing wrong with your question other than it presupposes a result of the current poll. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it in the way it's written (I can re-write it)? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what question you're asking - are you asking if it's OK to use different terms in the text of various articles, all piped back to whatever article talks about the state? Or are you asking if it's OK to have lots of articles (e.g. Ireland (state), Ireland (republic), etc) all redirecting back? Does this not preempt the result of Poll 3 just a little? It's no big deal - it's probably not going to make any difference either way. I've no problem to leave it as it is for now, although my preference is to separate discussions from polls, and I see you've added a comment into your question... :-) --HighKing (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your comment about striking the poll. I'm going to go ahead and do this for now. I expect that if we need a follow-on poll though, we'll be using a similar question to the one you just posed. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I find peoples reactions sometimes cringing to read - maybe striking it is best for now. Can you clarify polls 2 and 3 - I still find them confusing. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. The polls are supposed to be simple (oh well...). It's related to the discussions that have been ongoing in a number of places. I hoped to build from what we can agree on, and ask questions to determine (narrow down) what we disagree on. The poll is to try to narrow down exactly what is the problem with the term "Republic of Ireland", or even if any problem actually exists. If no problem exists, we could return to the British Isles questions, happy in the knowledge that nobody objects to using the term "Republic of Ireland". Uf there are objections, the next task will be to try to find a compromise (and perhaps your skills will come in handy here). --HighKing (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As usual, I'm having a thick-headed moment. I preffer no pipelinking for RoI; therefore, how would I vote? GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Against" in Poll 1. I think the problem with these set of Polls is that they are just asking 3 particular questions - they are not really giving people a set of options per se. They perhaps should be called "Questions", rather than "Polls". I think they are at least clearer in meaning now anyway. What do you think? A problem could be that they look like they are leading somewhere, and people can feel a bit disconcerted by that. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt - it was very difficult but I was deliberately trying to present 3 questions (and yes, Questions would have been better than Polls) without offering a choice of responses. Based on the responses we might receive to the questions, we may decide to explore options in the future, and finally present the choices as a poll.

In a nutshell, the way I read it - if you want to keep what's there, vote that you agree with everything. If you want to see changes, decide where you'd like options and disagree. Thanks for your help earlier. --HighKing (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's alright. When you do things like this you have to expect some people to grumble. I thought they are now what you originally intended! Out of curiosity, where do they differ? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I misread the fist line of your of your Clarification and Examples section! I'm glad I managed to keep to your intentions with my amendments (apart form my first one, possibly, which PureEditor changed back). I know some people are starting to be a bit funny now, but make sure you keep faith in the polls now we have them. Some people just don't want to be pinned down, I think. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've chosen to give a thumbs-down to pipelinking RoI (unless my deal is adopted). I've come to the conclusion, the RoI & BI disputes are unsolvable (thus my reason for proposing a trade-off). GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if Republic of Ireland is changed to "Ireland (state)" the guideline will be more easily passed - which is effectively what we would be trading. But I don't think Sarah777 (for example) would trade the full use of 'British Isles' in return for getting the ultimately underwhelming 'Ireland (state)' - it would have to at least be for the current BI guideline, as it has at least some restrictions on BI's use! There will always be some arguments in the future of course, even with the guideline - but nowhere near as many.

I personally don't see it as up to me what the Ireland (state) article is called (I probably wouldn't vote) - but as long as it is called ROI, I'm going to use ROI as a term! It is eminently sensible, especially when formulating examples for guidelines. If the Irish article was called Ireland (state), I would still structure the guideline around that political term, rather than the far too awkward 'geographical' island of Ireland. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO, there'll be more blockings & less page protections in the future. That's something I'm increasingly warming up to (no surprise, as I dislike edit-wars). It's not something popular (indeed, Administrators will attest to that), but it will be necessary. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you on that. I think that not just editors, but admin too will be made to 'toughen up' (in a stricter, "letter of the law" sense of the word), which won't be a bad thing either. I think admins can be too flexible with the current ambiguities, and are too tempted to side with/against favoured editors. General admin should be more like law enforcers (ie bobbies on the beat), and less like diplomats or lawyers. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the extremists must conform to NPOV. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we delete them? The questions have changed!The context has changed! The bindingness has changed! Their are questions not included in the vote! It reads like a case study for WP:Vote Gnevin (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would have to be "we" deleting them for a start! Deleting them has already been proposed (by myself per HighKing - who said he would be OK with starting again) but someone immediately objected. We simply can't do it now - it's gone too far, surely. I will today message everyone who has voted that it’s all been amended - as I promised to do. That should correct things. When people originally have different ideas of the 'questions' there is no "easy" way to rectify it - but we are working it out. You can propose us deleting them yourself - but I can't see how it would be productive. It's certainly a better approach than just deleting them! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it iconic that you of all people are supporting this vote given My main issues with Wikipedia:Headcounting at AfD's So head counting else where is ok? The nature of this vote should of been discussed , the quested agreed upon, the scope, limits and bindingness of its all agreed in advance and even then I would have reservations with its as voting isn't helping the situation , how ever i can see how a straw poll correctly phrased could point the way.Gnevin (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

They took me by surprise I must admit, and when I first saw them a number of people had already voted - so arguing for their removal was certainly pointless. I originally tried to extend them with another poll to try and fill them out, but it didn't work (so my extra poll was deleted) I think making them "Questions" was the best solution, and they are pretty harmless now.

I've added that 'disclaimer' and will message those people tonight - I have to get off right now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK but Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)#.22Question_4.22_-Start_again_:Since_you_are_all_in_a_voting_mood would be my preferred way forward Gnevin (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You poll is fine. I've changed the title to "Poll.." though - as this one IS a poll - it's not a 'Question 4'! I really have to go now.. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)It was bad timing on my part to have patchy net access, but thanks for keeping things on track and for not letting a simple set of questions spiral too much into a farce --HighKing (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

talk:Republic of Ireland

Some of your comments have been removed by Sarah777. I reverted him once. Djegan (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt. Yes, I take your point about notifying you before re-formatting at Ireland package deal. There was a lack of courtesy there and I apologise. On the other hand, In the normal way it would have been courteous, but you have shown below that you are not deserving of any courtesy. Besides, you were offline for 14 hours and an awful lot of posts were added in that time, so it was essential to separate out the sections quickly or the whole thing would have become confused with nobody knowing quite what they were voting on, or how the vote stood. So even if I had notified you here, waiting for a reply would not have been an option. Scolaire (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see why it needed to be done for sure, but I should have had at very least a courtesy message - especially as you are an 'Oppose' vote for Pete's sake! And have more than pissed me off before.

The main problem for me is that you had two errors in you initial oppose assessment - and at least one other editor has said "oppose per Scolaire", and another has further mistudertood the word 'republic' as being "ingenuity" by me. The reason I suggested "republic of Ireland" (small 'r") wasn't ingenuity at all, but because Enclyclopedia Britannica use it all the way through their "Ireland" (as a state) article! Literally all the way through.

Can you see how frustrating it is to all these 'opposes' when I know a number could be misguided? I don't think it will help anyone if this poll is seen as yet another 'cock up'. Maybe I should have waited and did it properly myself - but I really edit on British issues, not 'specifically' Irish ones. I don't see the republic on its own as my business, and I only deal with it if it crosses my path (like on football for example, eh?). Isn't it ironic how certain Irish matters keep stepping on other people's toes, just the way terms like British Isles do. Nobody smells of roses - and certainly not you. I think we should sort it all myself. I trust you agree.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted only to apologise and explain. I think your response is most ungracious! Of course I'm aware that I "more than pissed you off before", and I know you are aware it was not a one-way street. I thought you would be grown-up enough to let that go - it's water under the bridge! And "Nobody smells of roses - and certainly not you" is dangerously close to a personal attack! The people who agreed with me down the line simply agree with me; I didn't lead them down the garden path just by not being aware that "republic" is used in Britannica! Anyway, whatever about notifying you about re-formatting, I certainly don't need your permission to reply to your suggestion! You are to be commended for trying to come up with a compromise solution, and your proposal does have merits, but please try to keep a sense of proportion. All discussion is good, and somebody not agreeing with everything you say is not an attack on your integrity. BTW I don't understand "I think we should sort it all myself." Scolaire (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

By "I think we should sort it all myself." I mean all the disruption to the articles surrounding Irish matters. Especially when 'British Isles' is invlolved (article locks etc). "ROI" is being changed to a pipe-linked "Ireland" as we speak, and in full knowledge that others don't like it, and it's an issue of the moment. Etc.

I'll copy my first line again here, as you simply didn't read it:

• (Reasons first): Encyclopaedia Britannica redirected my search of “Republic of Ireland” to an article called "Ireland" but uses “republic of Ireland” (small caps) throughout it. I like this ‘small cap’ option. I also noticed that Britannica doesn’t at all have an Ireland (as island) article – I’ve double checked. They have very small Great Britain and British Isles articles (basically link pages), but no article for the island of Ireland. I also notice that the Wikipedia Ireland (as island) article is mostly information forked from the Republic of Ireland article."

If you bothered to read ANY of my "(Reasons first)" you will have seen that Encyclopaedia Britannica uses the small 'r'. Instead of reading you hurriedly made it its own poll, and proceeded to mislead people on two counts. If got every right to be cynical - you neither read it properly (at all?), nor contacted me of your actions. And all that knowing how badly I felt about you over the total-gross 'association football' fisaco. Not too clever of you - no? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I did read that bit at the beginning, but it had gone out of my head by the time I replied! Weird! I think what it was was, when I said "nobody, but nobody, uses "republic of Ireland" with a small r" I meant people, in writing generally, for instance on WP, and then later, as I say, the reference to Britannica had gone out of my head. Of course, I don't blame you for thinking I didn't read it, but still you have no right to say "If you bothered to read ANY of my "(Reasons first)"" or "Instead of reading you hurriedly made it its own poll" or "proceeded to mislead people" or "you neither read it properly (at all?)". I began by being pleasant and apologising, and I have tried to remain civil even in the face of your provocation, but you have maintained your very unpleasant tone throughout. Very well, I withdraw my apology. Given your attitude, I don't owe you any courtesy at all. Scolaire (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PS "I think we should sort it all myself" is not English. I'm assuming you didn't mean "we" (you and I) should sort it all, so you can only have meant "I should sort it all myself." In other words, anything I disagree with is "disruption to the articles" and I should be given dictatorial powers so that I can make it look the way it should. Not too clever of you - no? Scolaire (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the preceding sentences, "I think we should sort it all myself" (regarding all the issues I described) is clear enough, I think. You only had to ask me to clarify - and you did - so what's the issue? Maybe you could try slowing down and reading things a bit more carefully. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say to you. Scolaire (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

An island of Ireland redirect to Republic of Ireland? Suggest an island of Ireland redirect to Northern Ireland aswell (for less familiar readers sake). GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you've fixed the redirect to Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to copy the redirect code from Ireland (island) but it's now a disambiguation page, so it no longer has the code. I took it from Ireland (state) in a hurry and forgot to remove the "Republic" bit! Glad you noticed and not somebody else. I can just see the toys whizzing past my head!--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Irelands (republic & island)

The island article must not be moved. The island has held the name the longest (way before the creation of the Republic of Ireland & Northern Ireland). However, if the consensus is to move? I won't try to prevent it. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PS- You've a double posting at Talk: Republic of Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks btw - I'm trying to reply to as much as I can. Still not seen a convincing argument against it yet! People are referring to "all their past discussion" without elucidating, which is always a pain. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are right. "Ireland" was the name of the the state/nation/country before the British invaded. ROI was a return to that, minus Northern Ireland. Was the word "Ireland" originally a name for the people, or the for land mass? Do you see what I mean? I think it was originally a name for a "nation" that covered the island and the two became synonymous. But "Ireland" was originally the name of the nation/people.

And is a lump of rock really more important than a people, anyway, even if the island was called "Ireland" first? But I'm sure it was the name for the nation of Irish.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If the article Ireland gets moved, it will only mix things up further. I don't oppose the move for personal reasons; but rather for future Wikipedia headache reasons. But again, if there's a consensus to move? I won't fight it. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire - point by point analysis

Re answering my analysis point by point, you could copy and paste each point, and then reply underneath it. It would save any further edit-warring. Scolaire (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is too personal: You keep aluding to me. It is simply too much, Scolaire - too OTT. I will answer under each point. If you remove my comments you again I will report you. It's no big deal - you just have to deal with it. You cannot remove my posts.

Please don't try me here - I have nothing by right on my side in every element of this, you must realise that. You simply can't make these formatting stipulations. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I keep alluding to you? I keep talking to you - that's what talk pages are for! Anyway, I can't be bothered any more. You have no interest in rational discussion, only in keeping up a grudge match. You can have the page to yourself, and I wish you joy of it. But we'll see who'll report whom. Scolaire (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It was all written in response to MY 'proposals' (and you did personalise some of your points). You cannot stop me from respnding fairly. I can't let this turn into a farce, either. People will very quickly call this a farce if let it spriral out of control. You gave 6 numbered points!! They were all a bit condescending too: they were hardly clean and clinical. Are all of us supposed to answer 6 points in turn? It's an outageous demand by you. As this is my 'package' I at least should be able to directly answer them! --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Matt. This is a polite notice that I have filed an alert at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I won't be bothering you on the article or on your talk page again. Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt please do something to redress this as soon as possible. Scolaire is a very thoughtful poster and if offence has been taken something should be done to rectify it. Your posts normally don't seem to be provocative in any way so I'm saying this appears to be just an unfortunate set of conincidences which have led to a spat. It's easy to rectify. The Thunderer (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought we got over it earlier, but his bizarre '6 point system' thing suddenly came into play - right in the middle of a thriving discussion/poll! I have to reply to his point section point by point. I'm sorry - but I have to. It's unfortunate, but I'll go to the alert now (I guess its started) and apologise for any offense - he's clearly hurt, but I'm a tough man - I can't always be that sensitive.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes you just need to take a deep breath, kick the cat and go away for a while. It's not worth upsetting yourself or others. The Thunderer (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Wikiquette alerts are like buses! One finally comes along for you, and guess what's just behind? Fortunately it's a friendly panto bus with a free fare. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the last time I make an apology in one of these! Bloody hell. You just never know with this place - editors, admin - its all a total lottery. So much for calm, dimplomatic, unbiased, mediating resolution. I feel totally compromised now. What a stupid place this is at times.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just a spat - go kick the cat again. The Thunderer (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to your calm, dimplomatic, unbiased, mediating resolution at WP:WQA. Scolaire (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

FFS Matt - end this - it's pointless. You and Scolaire are good editors and shouldn't be having this discussion. The Thunderer (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK OK - I had to rush out, but it's been resolved at the WQ or whatever it's called. The cat has already been kicked (big white muscular thing from next door that kills everything in sight). The obvious thing for me to do was always staring in my face - I only have to duplicate each point in italics per reply, and everything is fully readable for all of us then - and the points list is intact. Soclaire - that comment of frustration above was not given towards you at all - you were not even at the WQ and probably wisely kept away. I'm not out to get you personally and never was. All my actions are purely in response to whatever is in front of me each day - they always are with me. I'll try and keep my temper intact, then I don't make these errors of judgement. Apparently you suggested I could duplicate your comments and reply to them - sorry I missed that, it's obviously the way to go. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not the comment of frustration above, it's the personal attacks at WP:WQA after the issue was resolved and after your apology. Go have a read there - I have recommended you be blocked. Scolaire (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe not then :-) Scolaire (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting section

Hi Matt. With regard to this edit summary, as it happens I have no objection to the deletion of the section, but it seems to me there were issues of courtesy and notification not so long ago. Was there some pressing reason for doing it that you couldn't drop me a note? As I recall, "fairness" is one of your favourite words. Scolaire (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course you have no objection - you should consider it a favour, given how badly it reflects on you! Haven't you wasted enough of my time? I simply followed your lead here - that wasn't quite the case before, was it?

It was simply to declutter the page - you are more than welcome to put it back. I'll archive it for you if you want? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My head just wasn't clear there. I was still reliving old battles and I forgot that in that particular section I got the wrong end of the stick altogether. Forgive me for mouthing off. I really don't do it often and I feel like a total plonker! Scolaire (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Pureditor"

You may be interested[2].

Please note I am not willing to take a detailed part in the proceedings, however I will be watching.

Regards. Djegan (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've found out that he's been checkusered as a 78.16.xx.xx (here), so I'll add this info to the case on him in with that. I'll only refer to it as him being accused before, although I will have to pinch your diff to support it. Hopefully it won't drag on - it's a pretty clear-cut case to me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

Hi there, I posted a message on User talk:Thumperward talk page suggesting bringing in editors who have no interest in the subject to look over the discussions and give there verdicts over the debate. If you think this is a bonkers idea tell me and I'll shuffle off. :> Skipper 360 (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just been told its called Wikipedia:Requests for comments Skipper 360 (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have put forward the idea Here at the Republic of Ireland talk page. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm on and off the PC today in very short spells. This is a tough one. It's easy to offend people with this subject, that't the problem. I don't know all the options on offer, but I know I've been offended by something called 'Third Opinion'. Someone wandered in (just an editor), judged against my views, and wondered off. I was really angry with the guy for doing it to me, as it didn't actualy mean anything - he just took a side that happened to be against me. This would be different I know, but it's hard to guarantee unbiased people when the it's a small net you're casting. If whoever joins in doesn't do it extremely well at least some poeple will get pissed off - even called it a "farce" (which can be a loose word round here). Have you seen WP:BITASK by the way?: The issue here would effect that (it's kind of on hold). Let's see what people say. When I understand the Etymology of "Ireland" better I 'm happy to use it in a case for a package deal somewhere else - villiage pump etc. Have to go, Matt --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. I understand your concerns and hope they are unfounded on this occasion. If someone does come in and makes a mess of it everyone can point at me, after all I started it. I think most people are a little sceptical, but who knows, with a little luck it might work. Fingers crossed. Skipper 360 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the poll is asking the wrong question. You and Sarah voted different ways, yet you both agree Republic of Ireland is not a suitable name for the article. The first poll should simply ask if you agree or disagree with the article name and then go on from there when the poll is closed. What do you think? Skipper 360 (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the point you made on the talk page. The poll could be putting off outside editors from expressing their opinion.Skipper 360 (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you should move the poll to just above your request. I'm sure no-one would complain if you fancy doing that. No-one can say we are cutting the poll short then (ie by mini-archiving it or something). You are fully entitled to do it, IMO, as you made the request and this has rather cut it short - and you are keeping the polls together. I am working on my suggestion at WP:BITASK. I'll not have much time today (I'll be on and off), but I'll try and get it set up. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Matt. Why do you say a 'country' as a disambig page. The country article will be renamed Ireland (state), while a disambig page would get the name Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I said I had asked an admin to give an answer to the disambiguation question. I think I was in too much of a hurry to go down the pub, I see now he wasn't an admin, my mistake. Ah well. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added clarifications at Alison & Jza84's pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I just mean can a request to a country (ie state) lead first to a disambiguation page. I'll have a look at it. To be honest I'm tired of not being able to use common English. You do realise that Alison and Jza84 both voted in the RM to "Ireland (state)" - and they both voted against? Doesn't look promising from an admin point of view. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I wish to have the article moved to Ireland (state) & Ireland to Ireland (island); thus opening up a Ireland disambig page? I recognize the onus is on me (and others) to get a consensus for these changes (a consensus that doesn't exist). GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They were pretty conclusive votes from the admin at Ireland (state). I know Alison is just one person, but I'm not sure I want to waste my time pushing something forward without it looking good for a win. Jza too. I don't know, GoodDay. I'm into working on the 'package' idea. But we need to know if disambigiation pages can be used or not for countries. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I only hope when this all ends, editors on the short end will comply. I'm (again) very pleased to see people discussing these topics (rather then edit warring, over them). GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rfc closed

Hi there, I have now closed the Rfc. There seemed to be no new editors coming in. In trying to help I hope I haven't confused it more. I'll be off to pastures new and wish you all the best. Cheers. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you input. I don't think you confused it more, if anything it lead to some more 'general' discussion and some new ideas - even if many new voices didn't get involved. People who want the status quo will always try flatten these things (such is life) - but it's done any harm at all, far from it. I'm looking at a 'task force' for new discussion, so hopefully the ROI Talk page can be freed up a bit now for the country itself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I shall look in very occasionaly to see how it is progressing, just to take a look. Its been good working with you, and may all your discussions get consensus Skipper 360 (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think something will in the end - some kind of change is simply needed. There are compromises that haven't come up yet too. If you are watching a lot of pages you might want to try out the enhanced "Recent Changes" in you Preferences (the Java option). If I remember, it's the one that contracts all edits in the watchlist together per article. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that, thanks Matt. Skipper 360 (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Thanks for that. First time I'd seen it. I don't have to worry - yet! It says If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick... and fortunately you're the only one, so i don't have to worry. Have you ever read M:MPOV. Now that is really good. Crispness (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure I'm the only one? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure! Crispness (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on ROI talk page

Copied from Talk:Republic of Ireland:

• Do not presume to tell people what I'm into - strongly or otherwise! That link[3], if you bothered to read it yourself, is where I used my user page as a sandbox when there was a discussion on what was then the new Template:IrishR, before I learned about user subpages. What I'm "into" is not your business or anybody else's, and there were undertones in that comment that I didn't like at all! Scolaire (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you write this if you are not an Irish Republican? You say you are proud of your Republican heritage. It is my 100% business if I think you are playing games with me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I recommend you exercise a little good faith on the matter here. I can confirm that; regardless of personal views, Scolaire is a very good, neutral source of opinion on Irish affairs. The Thunderer (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a citizen of the Republic of Ireland - in case you missed that on the Republic of Ireland talk page - and I am proud of my heritage. I also believe strongly that the only way forward (in the Northern conflict and in British-Irish relations) is an acknowledgement - not the adoption - of the republican philosophy. Those are two statements of fact - not a declaration of what I'm "into", and not a reason to label me as anything. Let me ask you two questions: Why have you gone to such trouble to dig up my old edits to my user page? And why do you continue with the dark hints - "No one can expect to hide these things", "I did think that originally (very strongly too)... ", "if I think you are playing games with me", "least of all when you argue like you do"? How do I argue? Like a terrorist? You are on a mission to blacken my name, as far as I can see, and I am asking you now to cease and desist at once! Scolaire (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not on a mission to do anything of the kind! As I've said before, I'm just responding to whatever is in front of me. Nobody has called you a terrorist. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And your answer to my two questions? Scolaire (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll find the edits where I felt I was mislead, I promise. but not now - you'll have to wait a bit. Some poeple are busy doing things: we don't all just stop things from happening on Wikipedia. You have done everything you possibly can to pour negativity over this debate, and I have to work twice as hard as normal to counter-balance that.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt I don't think Scolaire is pouring negativity on anything. As an outsider looking in I can see much common sense in what he is saying. Of course as a citizen of the Republic he is entitled to his views, feelings, national pride and anything that goes with it. I have declared before that I'm a Proddie from the Black North but I try to keep my views moderate and I've noticed that Scolaire applies the same logic as I do. That should tell you several things. It should let you know that Irish people can be objective when it comes to Irish matters and also be friendly about it. I don't advise these discussions over a pint however as it often comes to blows, but that can be fun too ;) The Thunderer (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am preparing something I hope everyone will find useful - I have to get it right though. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And your answer to my two questions? Don't worry about where you were misled! Why are you digging up my edit history and why all the dark hints? You can answer both questions here and now without doing any reasearch. Scolaire (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And no, I am not prepared to wait. If you have something to say, say it! The innuendo must end now! I am going to bed, and when I get up tomorrow I expect to see an explanation or an apology. Scolaire (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

re 78.16.xx.xx

Thanks Matt - I suspected something (I was thinking possibly User:Gold heart) but didn't know for sure. There definitely seems to be at least one banned user trolling anything British Isles related using dynamic IPs and such - it's annoying me so it must really be getting on your nerves! I'm not sure what can be done about it without affecting other (genuine) IP editors though, other than WP:RBI each one and trying to WP:DENY. Waggers (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I spent quite a while looking through Google - there could be a hundred edits on 78.16 and 78.19 by this guy (I looked through every one related to Wikipedia). The vast majority of the 78.16's were 'in theme' with Wikipeire's interests (or whatever he was originally called). The 17.19's were a bit more diverse, although I'm sure he has been that one too.

It's is farcical if we can't stop someone from doing this forever: it just makes me suspicious of certain editors, and we have to AGF all the time. The AGF policy and the structure of Wikipedia simply don't combine well on IP usage: the benefits of IPs can't possibly outweigh their damage. I'll have a look through Gold Hearts edits - I've heard his name a few times in passing, but haven't seen his history yet. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

'Tis why I favour making 'User registration' mandatory on Wikipedia (even though sock-puppet masters do create multiple registered accounts). GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. I suppose I can see some use for ISP's, but surely something can be set up on an 'institution' basis - ie the IP sets are registered in some way. Or maybe they can just disallow the 'unfixed' ones that change so much. People should be forced to create a sock account if they are going to sock. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRIT

I have nominated Wikipedia:BRIT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion - thought you might like to contribute at the discussion page. Cheers, Waggers (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I've commented. Did you know it was up for a redirect deletion a week or so ago? Not that it should make a difference to somebody else re-nominating it - when something is this problematic there is nothing else people can do. I tried redirecting to Wikipedia:UK and it didn't work in terms of it being redirected back to WP:BITASK. Nobody has ever needed it in the past as it's too ambiguous IMO, and could easily be a problem for any future BI workgroup too. It's not fair to have to try and talk people into accepting another shortcut (as I was told to do) when they already have all they need and want. Wikipedia:UK has kept it simple - they just use the one - I can't see them accepting BRIT at all. Why should they? Although if the RfD fails again we may have to ask them - either that or I'll have to create a ten page essay on how to survive being British on Wikipedia.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It was meant for yours or his (the posting now at Snowded's talk-page). I wanted both of yas to be assured, of my NPOVness. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:UKCOUNTRYREFS

Are you sure this is an appropriate shortcut? Although it says nothing in WP:SHORT that I can see, I was under the impression just through experience that we don't create shortcuts to the article space - the WP: I believe designates that this shortcut should go to a Wikipedia namespace page, not an article space page. This seems to be borne out by the fact that Wikipedia:List of shortcuts contains no shortcuts to articles. As it is, quoteing "WP:UKCOUNTRYREFS" at someone in a discussion could be construed as linking to an official policy/guidline/essay, which it isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You could be right here - that didn't cross my mind. I suggest we leave it until an admin sees it (it shouldn't be long). There are a few who have it on their watchlist, so if it's an incorrect use they will soon take it away. If they do I'll ammend the links I've made to it to "Countries of the United Kingdom#UK terminology". In a sense, this part of the article is performing a similar service to a guideline. Perhaps it should be moved to one: I'll have a look at this.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, admin here (I have this page on my watchlist!). MickMacNee is right, I'm afraid - cross-namespace redirects are a no-no (they're suitable for speedy deletion). We don't usually have shortcuts for articles, only for projects, policies etc. and portals. Having said that, I think that's more of a convention than a hard and fast rule. The thing that causes the problem here is the "WP" in front. Remove that, and you might be ok. Hope that helps, Waggers (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed per your suggestion. There is somewhere else, closer to MOS, the tables could live too. If there are problems at Countries of the UK in the future, we can simply redirect the new "UKCOUNTRYREFS" to the other place (or direct it to a newly made WP:UKCOUNTRYREFS shortcut that leads there, if that is preferable).--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Matt, I'll delete WP:UKCOUNTRYREFS now. Waggers (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

How long do ya think may will last? GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the only thing Wotapolaver would give after he deleted and snubbed everything offered to 'compromise' with him on this line (a couple of months back now). Without it the introduction is racist nonsense. If I wasn't working hard on something for this place I'd be tempted to pack up and fuck off. I can't belive I'm even offering compromises on it. These are a bunch of people who don't want to see a Britain (and have said as much). They think the awkwardness and ambiguity over the term 'Britih Isles' makes for an untouchable home for their utterly lawless hatred. It's a fucking disgrace and is nowhere close to policy. I am British and there is a Britain - independence for Wales etc does NOT exist. I'm having zero tolerance for racism from now on. Why the fuck should I take it? I am British.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're heading into a Wiki-disaster, I fear. However, your honesty is admirable. You must do, what you feel is right. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly believe that Snowded is making a move now to push me out of this place, and he may well do so. There is a million things I can do in life, even when stuck near a laptop most of the day. Did you notice how Sarah et al accepted the removal of "offensive" and accepted just having "objecionable" (and not both)? When Snowded makes his favoured edit he always game plays 'talk page only'. I am totally tired of it. What does it mean? Honestly - what does that mean? It's freedom he has found to make whatever edit he wants. Are we to poll on every single edit we make? Wikipedia actually discourages most forms of polling! I know what Swowded feels about Britain and he has no right at all to bring it into Wikipedia, no right at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Stick it out. But keep the cool.  ;-) --HighKing (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, all I want you to do is play by the rules. The words were agreed after a long debate. Propose a specific change on the talk page and see if people agree or not. Removal of that one word may make sense. For all you know I may even agree with you. You are getting paranoid as well. Why would I want to push you out? You do a lot of good work. I get pretty feb up with some of the accusations you make, and your assumptions (without evidence) of my political views. I can live with that however, its the way you are. However it would be very helpful if you would stop throwing out all these accusations and abide by normal processes. --Snowded TALK 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The "long debate" was something you ignored - the eventual poll was a short and meaningless end to a messed-up proposal (which you happen th join the whole 'debate' with - so don't you harp on about "long debate'). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK Matt, ten editors agreed a messed up proposal which was short and meaningless. You know what was needed, have all the right answers and have now returned to save the day and tell us all what we really meant to say/agree. --Snowded TALK 17:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay said aloud he voted simply to get it over - Waggers moved from proposing a proper change, and clearly felt as GoodDay did as it was the it was the only option on the cards, the article was locked (hardly fair in itself - but had no interest in the earlier proposals - you totally controlled things after I retired). Who voted? You. Sarah. Crispness. Nuclare etc.. I consider that completely one-sided. Where was I (the initial proposer?) Where was the people on the other side of the argument? Where was Souza (the 'Keiser Souze' who was really yourself)? It was 3 months ago now and you have provoked me with the poll time and time again - and now you are hindering progress because of it. Your attitude is totally abysmal, and usually is Snowded. To call that list of particular people 'consensus' is a gross insult to whole argument - and nobody would (or has) done it but yourself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And how dare you say "all I want you to do is play by the rules.": These are entirely your OWN rules. Someone needs to tell you in no uncertain terms that you cannot go around Wikipedia reverting stuff you don't like based on what is essentially "poll on all change" reasoning (as you have done a number of times). I play by Wikipedia's rules, and always have: don't you dare say I don't.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you are obviously distraught in some way tonight. I don't want an edit war, but I do want proper process and fewer insults. Your latest reversal is a nonsense. You did not propose the change on the talk page. You made it a couple of days ago and I for one did not spot it (in part because I have been travelling). I restored the previously agreed text pending agreement to change. You do not have a right to override an agreement. I am not going to reverse now, but will go to bed. I suggest you think hard about your behaviour here and ideally revert it yourself and raise the suggested change on the talk page first. I will look at it again in the morning. --Snowded TALK 00:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In that time you were 'travelling' nobody changed it - or even questioned Waggers suggestion of it. You don't like it - and you are 3RRing it. So be so sanctimonious. There was no "agreement" that we must poll every single change that people are clearly happy with! That is totally un-Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

e/c Snowded knows full well that people are allowing the "objectionable"-removal edit to be made, but also do not necessarily want to sign their name by it (for obvious reasons too - why should they be made to?). He also knows that no longer line-change has been found that is acceptable by all. We have found an offensive and unreffed (in this present tense) word we can we all accept doing without, and he is reverting the removal of it, claiming (as he always does) that not proving consensus equals no consensus. It stonewalling in the extreme. I can't work in such conditions - and none of my peers would. You can't always prove consensus, and its not even wise to do here. Either we lose the grossly OTT anti-British it-for-tat insinuation in British Isles, or I'm out of here. In what I'm working on offline I am seeing these anti-British attacks/edits all the time - and I feel totally personally abused by it. And what will I be told? "Well now you know how it feels to have to see term 'British Isles' on Wikipedia!" Like it's my fault? It's totally out of order.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The established text was agreed here after lengthy debate. If you want to change that it is not unreasonable for you to be asked to propose the change on the talk page. A simple "I think it would make sense to delete offensive or, any objections" would have allowed others to express an opinion. Of course you are entitled to make the change direct, but if another editor objects then it is normal to discuss on the talk page. My motivation on this is very simple. Over a range of issues on this and other pages (including Wales, Scotland etc) we have stabilised forms of words through long and difficult discussions (you and I have worked together on several of those). Editors changing those words and refusing to engage in discussion are disruptive, and encourage others to disrupt in turn. You make a series of statements about the motivation of other editors (in effect saying that its obvious they all agree with you). If you think this then its simple to test. You also seem to be saying that if you are not allowed to have your own way, and make changes without discussion then you will walk away (possibly with your ball). You then add in this nonsense that you are being abused by anti-British attacks (and racism to use your word) without a shred of evidence; a significant failure to assume good faith. I repeat my suggestion that you reconsider your behaviour and revert opening a discussion. --Snowded TALK 00:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

When being British is compared to being a Nazi I know It's time I stopped talking to these people. I find a lot of the discussions distasteful and quite frankly a disgrace. I have never in my life had a bad thing to say of Irish people, why should I, my Grandfather was Irish, yet I have to listen to my own nationality (British) being taken down. Matt, I admire you for seemingly being the only one who tells it like it is, but it's not for me. The best of luck to you. Skipper 360 (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There are positive times ahead if things can stay sane, but only hard work and a stupid amount of man hours will get us there. Anachonism is mixing the past into the present (or vice versa) - unfortunately, as the term 'British Isles' is anachronistic too (if you read 'British' in the post-'United Kingdom' sense) - so a lot is just tit-for-tat. Regarding the ROI problems - many Irish seem to be actually fighting each other over how best it is done (though this can be hard to pin down): so the 'British imperialism' accusation is often not only anachronistic, but can be a complete red herring too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you waving that bloody 'debate' at me again? When you know damn well that:

1) I'd been working on the issue for ages prior to that 'debate' - whereas you joined it at that point - hence you obsession with it as some kind of 'zero point'. It didn't start with you and your utterly confused debate.

2) I was blocked and then retired for a whole month essentially as a consequence of the way the 'debate' was conducted (ie steamrollered by you and Jack Forbes). I didn't even see the end of it.

3) it was a total and utter 100% farcical 'comedy of errors' no-change of a swapped-proposal please-stop non-existent dumb-arse 'debate'. And you have made me relate that several times now (often providing the details), simply I am certain, to wind me up.

You say: "Editors changing those words and refusing to engage in discussion are disruptive, and encourage others to disrupt in turn." Aside from the dreadful logic - I am not disruptive nor have I encouraged a sole in this place to be disruptive. As I consider gaming disruptive I would not say the same for you.

I have been a positive force in some of those 'stabilisations' you are refering to - in no way would I ever revert someone who makes a needed edit, especially one which has clearly worked! It's an utterly mindless thing to do - and totally against the ethos of Wikipedia. I have not felt it right for me to edit on Scotland and I TOTALLY object to that article being brought into the mix here: this was done a lot at Wales too, and I often see cross-article gaming in it, as I've said in a few places now. Each article and edit starts as being unique. ~--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt it is a simple question of fact. A long debate took place, 10 out 11 editors agreed a position. There is nothing in that debate that justifies words such as "steamrollered". A mediator was involved and congratulated the group on reaching agreement. You chose not to take part for whatever reason. Now you choose to change the agreed text and refuse to discuss that change. Its disruptive and therefore (no bad logic here) will, if you get away with it, encourage others to disrupt other agreed positions. --Snowded TALK 05:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Better suggestions come along. Constantly referring to a discussion that took place a few months ago and refusing to allow the issue to be revisited is not helpful. Matt is correct in that a more recent suggestion was made on the talk page, and there was no objection to it. Therefore that is the most recent concensus, and the one that sticks. Waggers (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

More than happy for things to change, but it should be raised first on the talk page (explicitly). If you look above my suggestion is that Matt does that. A couple of weekdays is not enough to create a new consensus. --Snowded TALK 10:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PS I have just looked at the talk page. I see Matt suggesting the change, I see continued debate, I see no agreement and I do see objection. That needs to be resolved before the page itself is changed. Whatever it does not justify accusations of racism (which should be withdrawn). --Snowded TALK 10:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Likening the British to Nazis is racism. Matt was completely correct to call for it to stop, and I'll be watching carefully to make sure it does. Waggers (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the edits Matt is reversing, and nothing in my comments or arguments makes any reference to the British as Nazis (and I am British). Neither does bad behaviour by one editor justify sweeping generalisations in return - its plain insulting. --Snowded TALK 14:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone likened the British to Nazis. Sarah made a - IMHO - rather silly analogy around how would you feel if you were called a Nazi. There was no racism involved. Anyhow, whenever Nazis are mentioned online we should all just LOL, because its Godwins Law biting us in the bum again. It goes with the territory. It's not racist, just entirely predictable. Crispness (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, up to a point - that point being Sarah's history of likening the British to Nazis. She wasn't as explicit this time as she has been before, but the implication was there and we need to nip things like that in the bud. Matt did well to expose it. Waggers (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So if Sarah (or anyone else for that matter) is studiously avoiding referring to the British as Nazis and instead uses a different analogy, we should nip that in the bud? Actually I think we should be encouraging her (and any others) to not call the British Nazis. And I don't believe that suggesting what she said was racist does that. In fact, I think it does the opposite. She may well be thinking that she doesn't get any thanks or encouragement for moderating her language. Recipe for disaster in my book. Crispness (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The racism is a compounding thing for me, and it crosses over to the way NI is treated too (more on this later). I most clearly see it in this insistence that 'many' Irish people find the term British Isles "objectionable" - when we have no evidence (outside of Kearney's unverified line) to say that at all. The insinuation is that the word "British" is in some way an offensive thing. I look at the politics of the people who are insistent on this line, and it is all as clear as a bell. The cultural bigotry (ie the racism) is actually a form of political rhetoric: it is designed to demean Britain and Britishness. As I see those as positive things, I see at as demeaning the British (and hence myself). Like all compounding attacks, they eventually get to you. "Jew" is positive word, but when it is said repeatedly in a particular negative context - it becomes like a slur. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

British Isles break..

Yes, I admit to having supported the Souza proposal - simply to end the dispute. Feel free (anyone) to erase support opinon. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said. If we can all get together to remove the offensive "offensive" word now, we might get the article unlocked again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My supporting removal of that term, would be simply in hopes of unlocking the article (same scenerio at the Souza proposal). My hands are tied (make that, my fingers). GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But that sounds like you think that Wikipedia can actually support telling the world that "many may find the term offensive"? It is based merely on the appropriation of Hugh Kearney's context, in a place where he uses the term for modern Ireland himself. He does not verify the statement (weakening it as a reference), and we cannot verify Kearney ourselves with any other references at all for the present tense. Doesn't sound very Policy to me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, there's no way anybody can proove how many people in the Republic are offended by the term British Isles. One would have to go door-to-door & get a numbers count. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, it's best you let the checkuser concerning ThatsGrand run it's course. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but he helped get British Isles locked, along with an IP and Snowded (who would otherwise be on his own here) insisting on a poll. It's got to stop. Getting progress at British Isles is like banging your head against a wall. And guess who's voted in the poll? The IP and the sock. Surprise surprise, there is no great turnout otherwise too. And what have we got with the article? The endless 'status quo' cycle of another article lock.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there are topics out there that are frustrating. I've had my fun at the Scotland article. Also, I always feel uncomfortable when IPs are involved. It's no surprise, that I support mandatory registration. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about that last night. One thing about IP's is that we can find out where they are, when someone is hidden in a sock it can be hard to see them (like with Wikipeire today - he's hidden his suspect tag). Certain difficult editors, or groups of editors can do more damage than socks too - little cabals etc. I can see the case for socks in areas where their edits work - but they still need to be dealt with - perhaps ranges that people can hide in. Wikipedia need to register the ranges in some way, and admin need to discount them from all 'edit wars' - especially when article locking. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

IPs should be (at least) barred from Talk pages. There's something sneeky, about them. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the good edits by IP's can get deleted very quickly when they don't back them up in talk - I saw that in Alzhiemer's once. I've got the edit bookmarked somewhere as I think it could have been a good one (it was technical) but it got reverted for being an IP who didn't reply. If he left a talk message with the edit it could have been taken seriously. I'd like to see WP have a bot that appends every socking signature in the archives with a couple of words denoting what they are. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Such a bot, would be cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll stick to resisting page movement or page deletion requests of the article (leaving article content to others). It's less stressful that way (for me). GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The clamering for 'page movement' is getting annoying. If they (the anti-BI crowd) want to create another article called Great Britain and Ireland (which would likely be an Irish mirror of the British Isles article) so be it. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've just told Waggers, I've put loads of time in to WP:BITASK, and British Isles is the central article. I can't take one seriously and not the other. There won't be a move, but I'm telling you something - if there is not moment here at all I will be making my own BI article under a different name. I promise you that. There will be a point where I will have every right to consider the current article dead - since early in the year I've made so many suggestions - all of them shot down from the arrow slits. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The article's just been nominated for page movement to Britain and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - but by who? The term is simply in use. And imagine it was moved? Could they stop me from creating an new article over the British Isles redirect page, citing the term history and its continual use in society? The 'anti' brigade would be clamouring to get back into it. It's almost a dream come true - being able to create an honest and fair "British Isles" article from scratch! I've never been so lucky, alas. I'll go for British Isles (geography) if I had to carve-out the freedom to be fair.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My guess is, the anti-BI crowd would move their complaints to British Isles (geography). But yes, nobody can stop you from creating that article. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I will get a sockpuppet and an IP address and make sure my 'status quo' never changes! Have you seen the Bulgarian chap's user page? I think the BI introdunction is genuinely misleading someone into thinking that Ireland is being genuinely repressed by Britain here! Seriously though - that is the kind of vibe that Sarah et al are giving out here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the Irish language Wikipedia has a British Isles article. If not? I wonder what would happen if somebody tried to create one? GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Bulgarian chap is not intruding: sockpuppetry is en effet reprehensible, please, do not commit it, if I tempted you thereto, I would be lacerated by remorses. Besides, which objections do you have to my user page - soncerely, I am open-minded person? Let's not converse about which former empires which nations have suppressed, otherwise one readily becomes loquacious. One more question: is it permitted according to Wikipedia rules to apprise User:Sarah777 of the move request (no other Irishmen, I promise, would it be ok only for her?) ? Bogorm (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've informed her. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alea iacta est. Bogorm (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "apprise Sarah"? Tell her about it? She has British Isles on her Watchlist, so she will see it as soon as she is online. Sarah has a very personal way of approaching Wikipedia - I honest would look at some of the policy links I gave you above (like WP:PILLARS) if you want an example of how to use WIkipedia. Even Sarah's supporters would admit that she is not a good example for a newcomer to learn WIkipedia from! She has a very particular 'point of view' regarding Britain (WP:POV) - but it is does not meet with Wikipedia policy in this particulr matter.

I have spoken to you on your user page - in good faith, too - I hope you do understood that. I think the intensity of Sarah and some IP addresses (the numbers who edit) may have made you think that this is a 'political situation' in the UK and Ireland! It honestly isn't at all! Not at all. As for the term being "reprehensible" - that is just you POV. Some people see 'British' as coming from ancient terms that once included Celtic Ireland (Britannia is like this) - it is all different POV! Wikipedia can only reflect common use. It is certainly wrong to suggest the word British is a bad term. I am British, and I object that. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The term reprehensible was used only for sockpuppetry and I cannot retract therefrom for Wikipedia rules' sake. You did not share any thoughts about my user page, but notwithstanding I am delighted that you remarked and outlined it. Bogorm (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean now! I was only being ironic (ie joking) about using a sock puppet. The joke is that the British Isles article has been 'locked' from editing a few times now when a one main editor has edit warred - by joining with an (unconnected) sockpuppet and an IP address! The article always gets locked in the 'old version' - so this is a repeating 'cycle' and the introduction never gets changed! My 'point' of the joke was that, if I created a new article, and made a sock puppet and got a new IP address - then it will always be my article!

Sorry if I have misinterpreted your English - it is probably sometimes too good. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mine English? Did that belong to the irony? If not, I would be grateful. Bogorm (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes - but don't worry. You sometimes pick uncommonly 'good' words, but English is a very big language - it has lots of words to choose from. I sould have concentrated more. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets start again

Hello again Matt. I have decided to come back to wikipedia again, and I ask you to start afresh in your opinion of me. If we have disagreements in opinions lets not make it personal. Jack forbes (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I only ever deal with what is in front of me, and always will. My opinion is only ever based on what I see, so it is all depending on that, nothing else. You are fully entitled to edit according to your account status, of course, so we shouldn't need to cross for a while anyway. I have not found things altogether easy for me right now (recently, and today especially, was a real struggle, and even now I am working on removing a sock) - so I'd appreciate it if you would still endeavour keep away from the nationality issue, especially British Isles. I've got GoodDay on my watchlist and I know he likes to keep you in touch (why I don't know - it's easy for you to follow!). Don't fall to temptation! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I'm not as bad as you think, and god help me, I'm always tempted by temptation. Jack forbes (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, I'm being watched; giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Racism?

Matt, you are starting to repeat charges of "racism" in relation to the "British" Isles debate. That is a very serious charge and would be a clear breach of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF (amongst others) unless you could clearly demonstrate it. As I'd be horrified to find racist remarks being used in this debate I think you must clearly state: (1) who made racist remarks and (2) provide diffs. Failing that I suggest you withdraw the charges pronto. Sarah777 (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have explained it fully where you have seen it: I'm sure there is not part that is unambiguous. Take the time to read it (and read your talk too) - I'm too busy to go step by step with it for you again here. Your 'side' of this matter have made me repeat things ad infinitum, often just through a kind of effete hubris. I feel ashamed all the time that I actually spend my time doing it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked you to clarify Matt - I note that having made the accusation of racism against other editors you are unwilling to be unambiguously clear about who you refer to and what specific racist comments you are talking about. So I suggest you withdraw such a poisonous charge. Sarah777 (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I take it from that you read through the BI page, and want me to repeat what I said in there again in here?

I find the die-hard insistence of the word "objectionable" in the introduction at 'British Isles', when it has one un-verified (by Kearney) reference that is impossible to verify for the want of any other references to verify it with! I find it bigoted in the extreme. When combined with the word "offensive" (ie "many find it offensive or objectionable") and the reasons given for it (and what I see, and have seen too many times, nearby on Wikipedia) adds up to me feeling culturally attacked. Its the kind of cultural bigotry commonly called 'racism'. All my arguments I can think of to encourage fairness have been met with often total distain.

At that point I am stopping - and it is for your, maybe both of ours, sake. Even though you have a very powerful administrator in Alison who sounds like she will do a double back flip to keep you out of trouble (and she very unwisely - probably untypically - beefed you up last night - and I hope you don't hold her in too much esteem as nobody is perfect) - if there is any value to Wikipedia at all you will get into trouble if you force a serious argument out of this and it goes all the way. You must know I am no pushover - and I won't hold back for any 'extra' reason at all (ie your femininity or you behaviour curfew thing - how about that for honesty?). You just can't seem to see it (as I hope it's not a case that you don't care) but your comments can too-often be WAY beyond the acceptable line. And please don't compare you comments with mine: It's not just about being honest with you feelings, or being tough or even personal with people, nor is it about failing to manage AGF - it is about aggressively attacking a culture of people. You have to step back from doing it. And if you ever feel it is the only argument you have at any point, then you have to ask yourself why you are using it!

And if you come to the conclusion that you can accept Ireland's history with Britain being dealt with with merely a loaded slice of butter on the Irish side - then you know where I am. I am all for showing all of the issues involved.

As I have said - my section and comments were only (at the time) about that one ugly word. But Waggers is 100% right to say it is about more - and it's touched a nerve with him and the Skipper guy and no-doubt others too. The truth is that I am British - and I simpy can't deal with this incessent anti-British rhetoric all the frigging time. It is completely getting me down - I am on these UK articles because they interent me and I want to improve them, not to be insulted all the time! And I just cannot see any reason for it. Wikipedia is hugely biased against a even fair appraisal of terms like British Isles, let alone a pro-British one! Ireland is fantastically prosperous. The Irish are welcome and successful the wherever they go. ROI exists as a term because enough Irish people want it too (both off Wikipedia and on it too!!!). How in God's name does all of that mean I have to suffer this endless anti-British crap? It a howling room of nonsense to me. Please - just fon't get me started! I have not achieved anything on the matter (for all my attempts) - not a single thing - I have no control and no supernatural 'British' power. You jsut really just shouldn't get me started.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

may/objection British Isles

I see you've suddenly come around to my way of thinking. Pity you react so aggressively and reactively towards other contributors. The issue could have been resolved long ago had you been more civil. And, yes, I have been following the archives, indeed for far longer than you. Please learn good faith and civility. --78.152.254.226 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Cowardly and provocative IP (the ciminalistic and perma-banned user Gold heart from a cyber cafe by any chance?), I have never once "changed my opinion" over what is needed for British Isles - that is what is so painful for me, as I expect you know, having already called me a troll. You of all people have the gall to question my civility! You, and a few other people in this dysfunctional place, have consitently called me a "British Imperialist" because I've dared to challenge the exaggerated and un-policy fashion in which the British Isles article was forcibly constricted - and presented in a way that has nothing to do with the correctly interpreted policy of this encyclopedia. VERIFY, WP:REDFLAG, NPOV and WEIGHT were all abused, via IPs and sockpuppets through 3RR, to essentially get the 'status quo' version protected again by unwitting admin.

From the beginning I've repeatedly said "lets deal with all of the negative issues - but fairly and properly and per guidelines". I you have always said that. But haven't even read a fraction of what I've written have you? No - you have not read the archives, and you diff leads nowhere too: 'Jan 2008' is meaningless - I was effectively called a 'fascist' by you lot a couple of months before that. Why? Because I'm openly British, and I refuse to treat that like I'm a guilty man. And because I openly object to this hatred of Britishness bleeding into, and actually even used to excuse, the way articles are written. I know how to write a proper encyclopedia. Do you? Any edit I have made recently is a tempering compromise to keep Rockpocket's removal of "offensive" alive, pending a proper re-write, as he and Waggers (to name two admin now) have suggested.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice demonstration of exactly the kind of temperament and interaction style that I was referring to. Your nationality is neither here nor there - as is mine - what is at fault is your refusal to assume good faith. No, I'm not GoldHeart. No, I'm not motivated POV pushing. Even if you don't know these things, assume them. That is policy (and may even win support for your arguments, rather than driving people into opposing corners). --78.152.224.212 (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you the sometimes similar Wotapolaver then? You are certainly not at home. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh heavens, forget about it! Have a read of this and enjoy your time off. --78.152.224.212 (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't make up my mind I must admit - but I'll tell you my point: If either of you want to exercise the unquestionable power of an IP and receive genuine AGF about the reasons for your decision not to sign in, you both should be a lot more polite (to put it mildly) yourselves.

As for the idea of freedom from this place being merely "time off" - that really is a horrible thought. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No "both", just one. Take care. --78.152.224.212 (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) You're kinda funny actually MattLewis. However, I've added a ref to the fact tag you put on the dispute page. I can add about a dozen more if required. Worst thing is that you know where the references are too, but you're not willing to accept that they're true. Sad. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I extended the paragraph adding a sentence on Norman Davies (ie I gave some expamples for part of your claims), and put a 'citation needed' tag for the other part where you couldn't be bothered to. Why should I do your work for you? You know I am trying to wind down, and you can't stop provoking me can you? It just simply shows you up for the small person that you are. As soon as I'm gone you'll have much easier time. Can't you wait? --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, you just don't get it. It's not my work. It's supposed to be our work but you just keep insisting that you'll only permit things on Wikipedia if they agree with you. In any case, I'm not provoking you, simply trying to get you to recognize reality. For instance, I'm not a small person. I'm actually quite tall. You?

Seriously, if you'd actually read the references you'd see that what I and others have been saying for a long time is simply factual. You may not like the facts; you may believe that the reasons behind the facts are distasteful to you. They're still the facts. The facts aren't pro or anti anyone. They just are. If you'd get past your POV and your preconceptions of other people's POVs you might start to see that. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you really still claiming I haven't read the references, when I've been over them with you so many times?

As for my size (what else could you mean?), you wouldn't last two minutes I'm sure - your character alone tells me that! If you were really big, you wouldn't be so slimy. As you have heard (and listened to enough) from me over the past year, is that it's not about the refs that have been gradually and fairly and usefully compiled, it's the clearly finite amount of them - when a healthy abundance would reasonably be expected, for use to treat them like commonplace fact, as we have done (albeit mostly via a protected article). The word "many" needs behind it the availability of 'many' flag-passing sources for it to be used as fact. You only have an awkward clutch of refs, despite constantly lying through your teeth in your endless misleading little 'interjections' that you have "many many many". The amount, and context of them fails WP:REDFLAG in the Verify guideline: there are simply not enough good sources to appropriate 'cherry picked' words into the main text as irrefutable fact. But you won't allow quotes will you? You won’t allow any stylistic approach, in fact, that changes the harsh anti-British tone you demand. You certainly won’t allow us to detail the problem with the ‘British Isles’ term – it has to be called “objectionable and offensive” full stop. You have called some suggestions "pathetic" (even well worked out ones), and words like it. Some editor you are! Other failure of policy with you is the weight you demand given to the exaggerated dissent, and not to other matters, to the point where basically nothing else has been allowed.

It's been all about guidelines and policy with me - with you it's been all about winding other human beings up. Right now you just want to leave your crap in my talk page as your legacy when I leave. I've done all the work writing proposals - you have merely edited-warred back to 'status quo' protection, and copied and pasted the same old personal trite. Why? Do you really feel oppressed by the "offensive" British, or it really something else? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Wow, you really don't care about civility at all, do you? As for the "finite" number of the references, you keep asserting that there is a problem with weight, but you have still not produced one single reference to support your beliefs whereas there are many reputable and high quality references supporting the text in the article, actually supporting stronger text than is in the article. Meantime, are there references to support your views? Not one so far. Also, please find one thing that I've said that has been "harsh anti-British". You won't be able to. I've been civil and worked with verifiable references from reputable sources. You are simply aggressive and insulting and you obviously don't care about references. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been through all that with you in too many different places now, Wotapalaver. As for "you obviously don't care about references" - can leave WIkipedia and come back when your older and you finally learn how to argue like an adult? Policy on WIkipedia is not fully clear in all places I'd admit, but to say I don't have "one single reference to support my beliefs"! I've fully cited all my detailed proposals! I don't have to look for counter references to exaggerated negative claims: ie "many Irish don't find it offensive"! The examples I have in abundance (the literal version of "many" rather than your own) show the term's use, and the lack (and type that exist) of refs you would rightfully expect for this level of dissent you insist upon, simply prove my case.

The term is intrinsically problematic, yes - but the vast majority of Irish are simply above taking offense. They have other things on their minds. If you roused them about it they were tell you not to be foolish. They don't have your obsession about it. They are looking toward Stormont, and not in the mind to churn up hate, when they can simply explain something intelligently. You have no virtually refs of how people are behaving about this - it is all subjective (you talk about your mates - well sure). There is no movement for change, so you and couple of others are trying to use Wikipedia to stir one up. I don't myself have "beliefs" that need 'backing up' here - I just want to use Wikipedia’s guidelines. Your exaggerated style has been under my skin for two long. It is childish on talk pages, and completely unencyclopedic when you apply it to the article.

I'm asking you to avoid my talk now - you came to edit after no particular edit I had recently made (I've been avoiding it as you know), you came merely to troll, which you have successfully now done to the detriment of my time on Wikipedia (as you intend too, I'm sure). If you reply I'll delete this - in fact I'll archive it now instead. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)