User talk:Matt57/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Is Najjar a reliable reference?

You are invited to participate here (Imad marie (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Campbell

If you think Najjar is unreliable, what about Campbell? Is he reliable?Bless sins (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

They go hand in hand, the cases are very similiar except we have a little bit more bio-related information on Naggar due to him having a personal site, but in terms of RS, they are equally unreliable. Campbell more so maybe, because we dont know anything about his education. However, none of the requirements of being an RS are met by both of them. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Matt. Your comments that the Franco-Mongol alliance should be reinstated to its full version are being disregarded. Could you kindly confirm your opinion, either here or on the Franco-Mongol alliance Talk page? Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Consensus poll. Best regards PHG (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Box

I think something is strange here. The article "Fitna" should be on the Arabic word "Fitna". Then there should be a disambiguation page named "Fitna (disambiguation)". What do you think? --Be happy!! (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you might want to redirect the Fitna page to the Fitna (film) and create a "Fitna (disambiguation)" page. --Be happy!! (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Deuteronomy issue rereloadedJews chosing their own hangman

Hello, maybe you are interested in this issue. Your input is welcome. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 20:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. If you'd like to participate in drafting it, please feel free. Cla68 (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Mohammad Kaaba.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Mohammad Kaaba.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Mohammad Kaaba.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion

Your opinion is requested here. Thank you. - Agnistus (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Faulty Logic?

I do not understand your reversal on my edit on Zakir Naik. Could you explain why Naiks not-held debate with the Pope is important, while Naik's view on various subjects, like 9/11, headscarfs, Freedom of religion, the destruction of the monumental Buddhas of Bamyan, are not important enough? After all, those were all deleted from the article. See also old versions [1]and [2]. A lot of information was deleted over there. Was the logic for all those deletions not "faulty"? Jeff5102 (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Please read the Michael Jackson talk page, that piece of information is not allowed on the article until confirmed by Jackson or someone on his behalf. If you were to reinsert it after this warning your account will be blocked. — Realist² 13:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for understanding. Have a good day. — Realist² 13:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramzi Yousef

As demonstrated by the recent reporting of Michael Jackson's alleged conversion to Islam, only untill it is confirmed by Yousef or someone on his behalf can his alleged conversion be included in the article on him.

(Taz Manchester (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

Operation Black Tornado

Hi Matt, an article about a large commando operation which involved hundreds of people and resulted in the death of a number of people is not analogous to an article about the street that the terrorists walked on. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

American Muslim Council reverts

Hello, Matt57 ... I am concerned about the lack of discussion between Taz Manchester (talk · contribs) and Matt57 (talk · contribs) regarding recent edits to American Muslim Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ... I happen to agree with you, Matt57 ... can we please discuss this at Talk:American Muslim Council? Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) _{19:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)}

Army correspondence course program

Hello again, Matt57 ... I could use the assistance of Some Other Editor with regards to this article:

• Army correspondence course program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

created by:

• Promotional (talk · contribs)

This WP:SPA author removed the Articleissues template without comment, and they have ignored my attempts at dialog on both the article's and their own user talk pages ... I think that they need to be reminded of WP:V and WP:OWN.

Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) _{13:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)}

Proposed deletion of Army correspondence course program

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Army correspondence course program, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the Notability criteria.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

If you agree with me, then perhaps you could add a {{Prod-2}} tag to indicate that you endorse the Proposed deletion? — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This seconded PROD has been contested ... are you willing to post it at WP:AfD? — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad and slavery

Hi Matt57 - you are welcome to do as you will with this article. I've only reverted and semi-protected it to keep the edit's of a banned user off the site. I don't have an opinion on either the subject matter or the article. Happy Editing - Peripitus (Talk) 21:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Leave Giano be

Matt, just let Giano be. He's obviously worked up. Jehochman ^Talk 16:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just shaking my head at the fact that he's allowed to edit this website and say anything he likes. The troll level is super high. When that happens it always creates a division among the admins. On the request of Faysal and you, I'll leave the matter and let you guys have all the fun. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano will return, I hope. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And create more problems and Wikidrama. No thanks. I hope he does not. It reflects poorly on the adminship of this site if users like him who call admins idiots and stupid are allowed to stay. The admins are too tolerant. Maybe its boredom, honestly dont know. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You are allowed to have your opinion, but use some restraint in expressing it please. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Having peeked at his User talk Page's history. I'll admit, he did go overboard. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, well I'm done with this and he got the block he deserved. Unfortunately it wasnt a ban because he keeps coming back and repeating what he has done in the past (looking at his blocked log). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Really looks like admins are simply terrified of blocking Giano:

"blocks of Giano are not worth the subsequent heat they create."

He enjoys the attention and power I bet. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why'd ya delete my post? GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I will restore it if you agree that Giano should not call admins idiots and stupid and that he was uncivil. Do you agree? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes; as I've said, I checked his Page history & indeed, he went overboard. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I see, I thought you were refering to me. I restored it now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi Matt:

Can you please refer me to some biography article examples that you feel are especially strong and represent Wikipedia's highest standards? I am new to Wikipedia as an editor, coming from the software industry, and have already gained appreciation for what everyone here does to ensure a strong product. Thanks for your help and I appreciate your volunteerism for Wikipedia. Goldenlaker (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Any of the links here [3] are featured articles and examples of how it should be. Also see the policies: WP:RS. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

 Thanks for the info.  Goldenlaker (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Fareed Zakaria

Hi. When I read the article, it didn't really seem like he was telling about the taste of wine or anything about wine tasting. But more about the politics and economics about wine. Like he says, why people in America might not like German wine which is supposidly sweet, yet likes drinks such as coke and pepsi which are also sweet. Plus, there's an entire thing of him discussing some Hitlerian thesis. Unless wine columnists are supposed to write about stuff like that (I don't know for sure, I thought wine columnists talk about reviewing wine or something). Plus, if we're going to say that he worked for slate as a wine columnist, don't put some article written by him. All that means he wrote an article, or multiple articles. For instance, he's editor of newsweek, but plainly putting down one of his newsweek articles doesn't prove anything. If you can find something that says he was a wine columnist for Slate or whatever, that would be more appropiate. Deavenger (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. That works. Deavenger (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Susan Atkins

I'm not quite sure what to make of your comments, but I'm leaning toward thinking they might be facetious. In fact, I know quite a lot about WP:CITE, and I also know there is no hard time limit on how long something is tagged for citation before it has to be removed, but in fact, by singling out something actually positive that anyone has done for removal while leaving behind negative things seems more than just a little pointy and biased to me. It doesn't matter if the person is a murderer or a saint, we don't pick and choose between them for what should come out or stay in, based on which pole they fall, especially when it is not a WP:BLP matter. The points in her article about postive things in prison were from various parole board minutes and frankly, there hasn't seemed to be an urgency that it be cited today. That's one thing about a death, it brings out everyone to start picking on small points in the larger scheme of things. Perhaps you could point me to the policy that says we can't put both negative and postive things in any biography, and that it is okay for unsourced negative things to remain in articles about murderers but postives must come out post haste. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother discussing this with you further. If a statement in article that states someone had a good prison record and received commendations is so outrageously unbelievable and controversial that it requires that person to make seven different posts to my talk page to express amazement and shock that there might be articles with *gasp* four month old cite tags, to pontificate and patronize someone with sarcasm, smarminess and needless and hollow "lols" in order to make some point that is so much smaller than the time they have taken to be contentious in those posts, then you must spend a great deal of time stunned beyond belief. Please leave me alone and do not bother posting policy to me. You have a great deal to learn about congenial and good faith discussion and frankly, don't do it on my time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Good! I hope you have learned a valuable lesson about the rules of Wikipedia here (WP:CITE): an unsourced statement can be challenged and removed by any editor. As for "good prison record", she stabbed Sharon Tate 16 times so I dont think we should put her on the pedestal for being a good prisoner. I believe its much more acceptable to "lol" 'hollowly' (as you said) on Wikipedia than reverting back unsourced statements. Ask Jimbo Wales and if he says reverting unsourced statements is more acceptable than hollow lols, I'll give you the password to my account. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Careful there, Matt, your lack of neutrality is showing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, how embarrassing! Thanks for letting me know. These zippers just dont work well nowadays. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for disruptive editing and POV pushing. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Blueboy96 19:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your behavior of late, as shown at ANI, has been completely unacceptable. You're very lucky you weren't blocked indefinitely, especially for your borderline harassment of users based on ethnicity. Consider this your final administrative warning. I suggest you use this next month to seriously rethink your behavior, since if there's a next time for this, the next block will be indef. Blueboy96 19:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Why is User:PelleSmith not being blocked for the same reasons? I edit Islam related articles like he does. We're all involved in this POV related editing. The articles by nature have POV issues. Please unblock me, this is completely unfair. Blueboy96 what did I do that PelleSmith did not? I'm being blocked for what, for reverting back an edit from PelleSmith that removed referenced information?. Many of my older blocked were made in error. I believe I only had two valid blocks or something like that. This is an extremely heavy handed emotionally-motivated block by BlueBoy98. This is what I get for trying to make sure people are aware of true information on CAIR, an "unindicted co-conspirator" as labelled by FBI.

Decline reason:

Instead of discussing the edits of others, its better to show you understand why you were blocked and explain how your behavior will change going forward. TNXMan 20:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Its fine I dont have time to contest this any further. I was blocked for reverting back edits where PelleSmith was removing referenced information about a terrorist organization. This is what its come to. Its been 8 years since 9/11 and I guess some people forget easily. Some know what we're up against and try to do something about it while others for whatever reason, attempt to stop them. Who needs terrorists when we have people like that? I should have filed the ANI first, that was my mistake. He was removing referenced information and not using the talk page. I havent been coming here often anyway because of the egotistic battles people have to get involved in when just trying to put in referenced factual information. Its like the Palin/Obama thing. About 50% of the people try to do the right thing. The rest 50% will oppose them for whatever reason and try to impedes progress. Alright well whatever, you guys stay happy and all I can do is hope that we dont get attacked again. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to the ANI

This was my reply before I was blocked:

PelleSmith here is trying to delete information from a previous version of the page that FBI severed its ties with CAIR, even after I told him not to do it on his talk page. The edit comment was "stop edit warring and use the talk page" as you can see, when he himself was not using the talk page. I reverted to the stable version of the page and opened up the issue on the talk page. I respect editors from all faiths including Islam but I believe Wikipedia has zero tolerance as well for POV editors deleting referenced information from a stable/previous version of the page.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you really trying to claim that http://www.jihadwatch.org is a reliable source? When you come back from your latest block, I suggest you discuss it at WP:RSN first. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this was the link I'm talking about, that was taken out by PelleSmith. The referenced information taken out was:

the FBI severed its ties with CAIR over claims that CAIR failed to provide details of its ties to HAMAS

--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I've been unfairly judged ...

... due to actions in the past (and only 2 blocks were valid, the last of which was 2 years ago and the rest were blocks by mistake), its time to well uh - nevermind. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

Oh nothing. Wikipedia is a joke set up by a follower of Ayn Rand, to hell with it. I like your Qur'an verse though, I'll have to remember it, its a good one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.167.184 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I like 2:65 as well. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Hi, I was not involved in the discussion and do not know where the discussion is I just know the history, I have emailed an editor who was involved and will let you know the reply asap, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Matt, ill let you know asap, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I got a reply and he is the same as me, he remembers it being in and he has had a look and can't find the relevant discussion, so..we are going to have to discuss it, and see what arises on the talk page, perhaps if you open the discussion with the reasons that you think it should be added to the article, or get back to me if you have another idea, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Rajneesh was convicted and pled guilty to immigration fraud, and deported from the United States. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the links! --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Osho articles

I would think that as long as you sorted things out on the talk page, you should be fine. As long as you do that, I'll back you up if anyone complains at AN or ANI. Blueboy96 23:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ma Anand Sheela

I am sure you must be in favour of including the mugshot of Ma on her article. I am the one who uploaded it but they removed it. We need consensus to have it back there

 Jon Ascton  (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

UserCompare

Your UserCompare key has been activated. β^_command 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) - Mug shot.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) - Mug shot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 03:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Organization of British ex-Muslims

Please listen to this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUTFcgE1F7w

My name is Rob. I work for the ugly fish brigade. My number is 613-276-2139

Please tell the person who called me to watch this video.

Thanks - Rob. The ugly fish brigade. Protecting freedom in Canada.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roohollah1988 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hey

If you would like to get involved in a discussion regarding wether or not the views of critics of islam rodney phillips, robert spencer e.t.c should e on wikipedia. then here is where you can discuss

are critics of islam reliable sources?

if you think they should be on wiki, then say so. because other wikipedians dont consider it reliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.223.124 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 16

Matt,

We need some help on Islam-related AfDs. Could you take a look at these? - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

---

hi matt i am roohollah1988 i uploaded a file about splitting of the moon.last time i did not mention the sourse so i could ont assert. but now i did it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roohollah1988 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,

Thanks for adding the new picture in Dan Barker's wiki page and taking the proper steps to get the copyright issues taken care of. --Triesault (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad to see that older picture go. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FFI-logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FFI-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Online Quran Project

I am not quite sure why you have added '\\Notability|1=web\\' to the Online Quran Project - which sources and template are you referring to? Best regard --Imdkzmaa (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but did not help - please enlighten me. Best regards, --Imdkzmaa (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take a look at it in the upcoming week and add the necessary resources, template and sources needed. There is a couple of book-references also, I will try to incorporate these too. Best regards, --Imdkzmaa (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The updates have been added - please do check to see if its all right, thanks. I still need some more work on the article, but this must sufficient right now.. Best regards, --Imdkzmaa (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Matt57. You have new messages at GaussianCopula's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vulgarity

I guess we are some of the few editors who actually believe in keeping discussion civil and free from unnecessary vulgarity. I applaud you for it! Basket of Puppies 21:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, yes we are few and we know what we are up against. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Matt57. You have new messages at Basket of Puppies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

confused by your refusal to respond

You ask that users not post replies to your comment on Jimbo's page and that they post here instead. When they do as you ask you remove their comments without replying. So is it that you refuse to discuss anything with any user you don't happen to agree with? I think you will find that attitude will be an impediment to your having a productive wiki-career. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

They can (now) say what they want, I'm not removing anything. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearing the air

Hi!

I wanted to stop by to clear the air after the earlier thread at ANI.

Editors - people in general, even, and me in particular - often focus on disagreements rather than agreements, even when the agreements vastly outweigh the disagreements. It occurred to me in hindsight that your main point - that swearing is undesirable and unhelpful - is a point well made, and not one I would disagree with. Again, in hindsight, focussing on our differences rather than our common beliefs was unhelpful, and I'd like to apologise.

Promoting civil conduct on Wikipedia should be applauded, and I don't feel my arguments earlier were appropriate in this regard. I actually feel my comments were slightly pointy, and for that, too, I'd like to apologise.

All the best, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats ok, thank you for that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Good manners insist I notify you of this thread here [4] which is a comment on your provocative and unacceptable behaviour.  Giano  12:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User pages

One prohibited user of user pages are "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner."

Please detail exactly what dispute you are in with Giano if you restore diffs by him to your user page, and what exactly avenue of dispute resolution you will be undertaking, and when it will be completed by. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• It would be better Matt57 if you removed the whole box as unless you are in despute resolution with user Bali then the links and comments of his are also not a good thing to keep on your user page. Best thing here is simply to remove the box and move on, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 1 week, for repeated and egregious personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So I've been blocked for this which was to make a point that using rude, aggressive language is not right but Bali ultimate doesnt get blocked for "what the fuck are you on about"?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Whoa, what? This block has been made in mistake. The blocking admin did not see the background of this issue. My point of that post was to show that using 4 letter words in an offensive manner is a blockable offense, one for which Bali ultimate was left unpunished for what he said here. Being rude and offensive is not behavior that should be allowed at Wikipedia. Now that I've proved that one can be blocked for being rude and offensive, could I get unblocked and could the original offending user Bali ultimate be blocked? That is what should have happened in the first place.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Specifically point two. Do not excuse what you did with what others did. Two wrongs do not make a right. Additionally, I don't understand your argument that having made your point, you should be unblocked. If anything, our guidelines condemn disruptive editing to make a point. Finally, the unblock process is not the correct place to request action against other editors. As this is already listed at ANI and linked, I will assume that your points here and there will be viewed, however they do not address the reasons for this block, thus I am declining this unblock request. Regards, Taelus (Talk) 14:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No matter how this ends, this is going to have some interesting results, that's all I will say for now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not an admin review, just advice. You really should read that guide to appealing blocks. "Don't block me, block him" is unlikely to be productive, and veiled threats even less so.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't your unblock request basically an admission that you've disrupted Wikipedia to make a point? –xeno^talk 14:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Cube, its not a threat. I just have to do some things differently now obviously because I wasnt expecting this block at all. I have to change the way I see Wikipedia or maybe I'll just leave, I dont know. I will also talk to others outside Wikipedia about the chronic user conduct problems here. I have to take some actions or decisions, is what I meant.

Xeno, if I have violated WP:POINT, is that a bigger offense than being rude and offensive? I dont understand how someone can be blocked for making a point, but not for saying things like "what are you fucking on about" and all the other kinds of comments I gathered here. Isnt something wrong here? What is wrong is, I'll just say it: Jimbo's tolerance for rude and aggressive behavior. That may change if I get a reply from him but the fact that comments like the ones I gathered above, are being allowed to be said here, without any consequences or enforcement of discipline and that, people are ok with it, is a serious problem here. My "violating" comment was to show that rude offensive comments are wrong and should be enforced and outlawed. Thats exactly what I have proved. Did I violate WP:POINT? Actually I explicitly mentioned in my post that I was indeed trying to "deliver a point" (to quote myself). The point was to show Bali that he did not like what I said because the way I said it. The problem is that nothing is being done about such behavior here. It is OK if I was blocked for my comment, if that was the only thing I said. The admin did the right thing. However what should have happened is that Bali should have been blocked (say 12 hours) in the first place and that did not happen. What is sad that we all couldnt even agree that rude and offensive behavior is punishable. Even admin George came and complained about Bali's rudeness to him in another situation (scroll down to 3rd sub heading) but nothing was done and the issue was closed. As far as the enforcement of being respectful to other editors is concerned, I think its a sad state of affairs here.

Taelus, the reason for the unblock is simple: I (obviously) did not mean what I said. I only said it to demonstrate that no one likes to be talked to in a rude, aggressive manner like Bali did ("what are you fucking on about"). Its strange that I've been blocked for making a "demo" post of rudeness while other editors go unpunished in real situations. In summary, my unblock reason is: "I was kidding and trying to show an example." Also as I mentioned to Xeno above, is making a POINT violation a more serious offense than being rude and aggressive? Ok I violated POINT. There ya go. Sorry about that. How's that? Yes I shouldnt have violated WP:POINT since thats the policy here. But when no one was being blocked for saying things like "what are you fucking on about" and other things, I thought being blocked for violating POINT was not going to happen. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly (as I often do), Jimbo made an attempt to make a change in editor behaviour that resulted in a huge cock-up (the "toxic personalities" gaffe) and his pledge not to use the block button on en.wiki anymore. –xeno^talk 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

After many (edit conflict)I was about to mention that very controversy. Matt, the difference between the diff you're citing in your defence and the diff I cited in the block (as well as the general pattern) is that "what are you fucking talking about" is not (in my book at least) a personal attack. It uncivil, and rude and if there's a pattern, it could be blockable, but your comment was specifically directed. Instead of reacting to perceived wrongs in the same fashion, you should take it to places like ANI. OK, so nothing was done this time, but maybe next time, if you have evidence of a pattern of behaviour, somebody might be able to take action. By responding in kind (or worse), you make yourself no better than the people you hold in such contempt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently sarcasm is only tolerated on the part of some and not others. My offhanded guess would be that the intent of the offending comment was to have "f**k*" in quotes. I recall being on a customer call once and being lashed into by a senior customer executive using the "F"-word prolifically regarding my company and myself. As it was, a magnetic tape (dating myself!) of data essential to our root cause analysis we had been awaiting for a week had only left the building just before the meeting at which the tirade occurred. When the exec paused to breath, having gathered some steam, I replied screaming just as loudly (in more than 10 years, only one of two occasions I ever raised my voice at this job), "If your F**ing problem was as F**ing important to F**ing solve as you F**ing say it is then why did the F**ing tape we've been waiting for for a F**ing week just leave the F**ing computer room?" After a rather pregnant pause of dead silence, this being in a meeting of about 30 people of our and the client's senior management, said exec turned to an individual seated next to them and asked: "(name withheld), is this true?" Needless to say, at that moment we had attained an understanding and had quite the positive relationship after that. Imagine if my management had chosen instead to censure me for making a "point" by using the "F"-word and confine me to my office desk for a week with no system access. Sometimes, perhaps, a point needs to be made and taken for what it is.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Zeno, funny the block was used on me though. :D. Its just dysfunctional, is all I can say and Jimbo is 100% to blame for not being strict enough. Being tolerant is one thing but allowed misbehaving users to take over the place and rule freely without consequences is wrong and even these users know that. In the end, someone has to make the right call and sometimes its tough and Jimbo has not done that and we can see the results by looking at the state of civility here.

Peters, thank you for your post. Indeed sometimes a point has to be made in order for people to understand.

Its funny that WP:POINT is so easy to enforce but the more important WP:CIVIL is not. -Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

HJM, if you're going for patterns, there's a big obvious pattern here (these two usernames are the same person: [5],[6]) and yet no one has done anything about it. Why? The point is, why is this rule of "if its rude and there's a pattern", only enforced on me and say, no on Giano II? Looking at Bali ultimate, you said its "uncivil, and rude" and not a personal attack. Fine. It is still against WP:CIVIL so why wasnt he blocked for that? Why was the civility rule not enforced there? But there's nothing you can do about it. Tonnes of people were opposing any kind of action against Bali and no one cared even when admin George complained about being attacked ("good little Wikipedian"). These people know how to break the rules so they wont get blocked, they know what to say and how to get away with it. That's why things like these go unpunished here because no one does anything about and I get blocked for making a WP:POINT violation. I had specifically said in that post that I was making a point and therefore you could have seen I did not literally mean that comment. Let me ask you: did you know that I specifically said in my post that I was making a point, or did you just skim over and think I was being mean and rude and literal and really meant that comment? From your reaction at ANI it looks like you made the decision to block in a hurry. Ofcourse I was not going to call his loved ones and ofcourse he wasnt going to give me their numbers. It was a POINT thing. I did it to show him its wrong to used 4 letter words in a rude and offensive way while talking to another editor. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the point that you're missing is that a person using a "naughty word" in a discussion may not be the best behavior, but it's not nearly as disruptive as someone then turning the pedia into a battleground to try to have the offenders punished.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And my point is: how do things like this never turn the pedia into a battle ground, and the little example I made to make that point does? I will stop posting now and have made my points now and will leave it to the admins to decide whatever they want to do. If I dont get unblocked its fine. Once again, a WP:POINT violation can get blocked but WP:CIVIL is of no importance. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I just read through a large number of pages related to the backstory on this issue, and I must say, this block is horribly unjustified. An admin would be well advised to take a close look at Bali Ultimate's talk page and examine his history of problems, including previous blocks and ANIs. Matt57 was clearly turning his behavior around on him, which was, yes, trying to make a WP:POINT, but any block, much less an entire week, is horribly out of proportion to the offense. As a disinterested observer who just happened to stumble upon this, I would suggest removing this block immediately. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 17:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess you missed this little gem [7]. - Josette (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, but I don't think it's anything serious either. He's saying if Bali is okay with swearing, he'll call up his family and swear at them. Clearly facetious, pointy language. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)